From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Boes <jboes@nexcerpt.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance on temp table inserts
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:04:36 -0400
Message-ID: <29494.1053446676@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1053434229.4973.1.camel@takin.private.nexcerpt.com>
References: <baba9i$2vi8$1@news.hub.org>
<26320.1053406306@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1053434229.4973.1.camel@takin.private.nexcerpt.com>
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.
> PG version is 7.2.4.
IIRC, temp tables are really indistinguishable from regular tables in
7.2, as far as performance goes. The bottleneck for the bare insert
itself would probably be WAL --- are you sure all the WAL settings are
the same on the two boxes? If you have indexes, foreign keys, triggers,
rules, etc on the table then of course you have other overhead to worry
about ... but that seems somewhat unlikely for a temp table.
Also, is the temp table being filled in the same transaction that
created it, or in separate transaction(s)? That makes a difference in
7.2 and before (but not in 7.3).
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jboes@nexcerpt.com
Subject: Re: Performance on temp table inserts
In-Reply-To: <29494.1053446676@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox