Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Date
Msg-id AANLkTimB0FG2fPQPLL4SVgLWHTh8pYn3pJODTPDeaEM1@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle  (Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>)
Responses Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 10/26/10 17:41, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it> wrote:
>>>> temp  tables are not wal logged or
>>>> synced.  Periodically they can be flushed  to a permanent table.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean with "Periodically they can be flushed  to
>>> a permanent table"? Just doing
>>>
>>> insert into tabb select * from temptable
>>>
>>
>> yup, that's exactly what I mean -- this will give you more uniform
>
> In effect, when so much data is in temporary storage, a better option
> would be to simply configure "synchronous_commit = off" (better in the
> sense that the application would not need to be changed). The effects
> are almost the same - in both cases transactions might be lost but the
> database will survive.

Gee, I wonder if it would possible for PG to automatically do an
asynchronous commit of any transaction which touches only temp tables.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
Next
From: Francisco Reyes
Date:
Subject: Re: How does PG know if data is in memory?