Re: Temp tables performance question

> It'd be possible to have them go through the "local buffer manager"
> for their entire lives, rather than only for the transaction in which
> they are created, as happens for ordinary tables.  This would avoid
> at least some shared-buffer-manipulation overhead.  I'm not sure it'd
> buy a whole lot, but it probably wouldn't take much work to make it
> happen, either.
> 
> I think it would be folly to try to make them use a different smgr or
> avoid WAL; that'd require propagating differences between ordinary and
> temp tables into way too many places.

Yes, temp table optimization hardly seems worth it.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026