X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.193])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FDE89233C0
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 05:28:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193])
	by localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193:10024])
	(amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 38985-03 for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 20 May 2003 05:28:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0ADB923533
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 05:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4K4pkU6026321;
	Tue, 20 May 2003 00:51:47 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jeff Boes <jboes@nexcerpt.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance on temp table inserts 
In-reply-to: <baba9i$2vi8$1@news.hub.org> 
References: <baba9i$2vi8$1@news.hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Boes <jboes@nexcerpt.com>
	message dated "Mon, 19 May 2003 15:11:48 -0400"
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:51:46 -0400
Message-ID: <26320.1053406306@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
X-Archive-Number: 200305/379
X-Sequence-Number: 13544

Jeff Boes <jboes@nexcerpt.com> writes:
> What factors affect the performance of a temp table insert?

PG version would have a lot to do with that, considering how we've
whacked around the temp-table implementation in the last few releases.

> Hardware, O/S and PostgreSQL versions are all identical.

And they are?

			regards, tom lane