Re: Performance on temp table inserts

On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 12:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

wal_files = 2
wal_buffers = 32

on both machines. There isn't an index on the 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

The inserts are being processed in DBI using 'AutoCommit=1', thus they
are in a separate transaction. But it's the same on both boxes.

-- 
Jeff Boes                                      vox 269.226.9550 ext 24
Database Engineer                                     fax 269.349.9076
Nexcerpt, Inc.                                 http://www.nexcerpt.com          ...Nexcerpt... Extend your Expertise