Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Thom Brown
Subject Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date
Msg-id AANLkTilBD97tBH3f3-RHvXcYy7t3yCt6-JxAtZ15mVkF@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables  (Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>)
Responses Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables  (Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>)
List 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

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Joachim Worringen
Date:
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Next
From: Joachim Worringen
Date:
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables