Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
От | Joachim Worringen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables (Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Am 25.05.2010 10:49, schrieb Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz: > temporary tables are handled pretty much like the regular table. The > magic happens on schema level, new schema is setup for connection, so > that it can access its own temporary tables. > Temporary tables also are not autovacuumed. > And that's pretty much the most of the differences. Thanks. So, the Write-Ahead-Logging (being used or not) does not matter? And, is there anything like RAM-only tables? I really don't care whether the staging data is lost on the rare event of a machine crash, or whether the query crashes due to lack of memory (I make sure there's enough w/o paging) - I only care about performance here. Joachim
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: