Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 04:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: gmb <gmbouwer@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <1408360834601-5815206.post@n5.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFj8pRDjpaJDKWVm7gMuA-TMuMBjZYPKTB6CR3GJtv9ysqb+vw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1408260946918-5815108.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <B6F6FD62F2624C4C9916AC0175D56D8828AC64E4@jenmbs01.ad.intershop.net>
 <1408272021571-5815111.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <1408304846514-5815126.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <CAFj8pRB44Hq8kdiwfQZRJVNLGz1Q2NAd_7RLrLJyi9Xgy3pwoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1408339998171-5815175.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <CAFj8pRDjpaJDKWVm7gMuA-TMuMBjZYPKTB6CR3GJtv9ysqb+vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: High memory usage / performance issue ( temp tables ? )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_93704_27532651.1408360834603"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org

------=_Part_93704_27532651.1408360834603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just to make sure I understand this correct : > You can write PostgreSQL
extension in C - and store XML only in memory.Meaning that I write
function(s) which processes the XML using C which will allow me more option
with processing the XML  ? Will this allow me to cache the payload data in
memory for the connection and not only for a single function ? If not , this
approach will not work , unless I rewrite a lot of the code / functions. The
current solution makes use of a separate function for each different part of
the XML. Reason for this is that a lot of validation is also done on the
data. > Temp tables are best when you do some queries or when you need
indexes, but> it is terrible slow cache.> > else - Postgres is good as
database and very slow as cache. It is good for> prototyping and for less or
middle load servers. For any other use> different softwareSo your point is
that the use of temp tables in this kind of scenario is not vey efficient.
I'll then try to replace the temp tables with actual tables with some kind
of UID.Thanks for the response.gmb


--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/High-memory-usage-performance-issue-temp-tables-tp5815108p5815206.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - sql mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
------=_Part_93704_27532651.1408360834603
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just to make sure I understand this correct : 

> You can write PostgreSQL extension in C - and store XML only in memory.

Meaning that I write function(s) which processes the XML using C which will allow me more option with processing the XML  ? 
Will this allow me to cache the payload data in memory for the connection and not only for a single function ? 
If not , this approach will not work , unless I rewrite a lot of the code / functions. 
The current solution makes use of a separate function for each different part of the XML. Reason for this is that a lot of validation is also done on the data. 


> Temp tables are best when you do some queries or when you need indexes, but
> it is terrible slow cache.
> 
> else - Postgres is good as database and very slow as cache. It is good for
> prototyping and for less or middle load servers. For any other use
> different software

So your point is that the use of temp tables in this kind of scenario is not vey efficient. 
I'll then try to replace the temp tables with actual tables with some kind of UID.

Thanks for the response.

gmb

	
<br/><hr align="left" width="300" />
View this message in context: <a href="http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/High-memory-usage-performance-issue-temp-tables-tp5815108p5815206.html">Re: High memory usage / performance issue ( temp tables ? )</a><br/>
Sent from the <a href="http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/PostgreSQL-sql-f2142323.html">PostgreSQL - sql mailing list archive</a> at Nabble.com.<br/>
------=_Part_93704_27532651.1408360834603--