From: Jeff Boes <jboes@nexcerpt.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance on temp table inserts
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:21:13 -0400
Message-ID: <badklp$uot$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
References: <baba9i$2vi8$1@news.hub.org>
<4d5op-4h3.ln1@my-pc.ntlworld.com>
On Mon, 19 May 2003 19:19:32 -0400, David W Noon wrote:
> On Monday 19 May 2003 20:11 in <baba9i$2vi8$1@news.hub.org>, Jeff Boes
> (jboes@nexcerpt.com) wrote:
>
>> What factors affect the performance of a temp table insert?
>
> I would run an EXPLAIN on each of the two servers and see what
> differences there are in the respective execution strategies.
>
Hmm ... I'm not sure you followed my original post. However, in the
interests of science:
explain insert into temp_link_checksums values ('a');
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0)
EXPLAIN
This is identical on the two systems. As I would expect for an insert
statement ...
> Also, a VACUUM ANALYZE might be of interest to speed up the slower box.
But the table doesn't exist before I create and insert it. (Well,
actually it does: after the first CREATE, the subsequent uses of the
table are preceded by TRUNCATE TABLE, so it exists but is empty. I dunno
what a VACUUM ANALYZE will do for an insert, though.)
--
Jeff Boes vox 269.226.9550 ext 24
Database Engineer fax 269.349.9076
Nexcerpt, Inc. http://www.nexcerpt.com
...Nexcerpt... Extend your Expertise
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: jboes@nexcerpt.com
Subject: Re: Performance on temp table inserts
In-Reply-To: <badklp$uot$1@news.hub.org>
* 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