Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
От | Thom Brown |
---|---|
Тема | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTilBD97tBH3f3-RHvXcYy7t3yCt6-JxAtZ15mVkF@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables (Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
2010/5/25 Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>: > 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 > I think can create a tablespace on a ram disk, and create a table there. Thom
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: