X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.193]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751279256B8 for ; Mon, 19 May 2003 21:32:59 -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 27808-03 for ; Mon, 19 May 2003 21:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from news.hub.org (unknown [64.117.225.234]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071F6924EAE for ; Mon, 19 May 2003 20:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by news.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 8) id B2DE42534AC; Mon, 19 May 2003 20:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4d5op-4h3.ln1@my-pc.ntlworld.com> From: David W Noon Subject: Re: Performance on temp table inserts X-Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.sql References: Lines: 18 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:19:32 +0100 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Archive-Number: 200305/438 X-Sequence-Number: 13603 On Monday 19 May 2003 20:11 in , Jeff Boes (jboes@nexcerpt.com) wrote: > What factors affect the performance of a temp table insert? I would run an EXPLAIN on each of the two servers and see what differences there are in the respective execution strategies. Also, a VACUUM ANALYZE might be of interest to speed up the slower box. -- Regards, Dave [RLU#314465] ====================================================== dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon) Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail. ======================================================