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

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinaW3ZtGJbzgAARG0WfAOJxSPAbdVAZa6X_2dh+@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle  (Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
Responses Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
List pgsql-performance
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
insert performance (your temp table doesn't even need indexes).  Every
N records (say 10000) you send to permanent and truncate the temp
table.  Obviously, this is more fragile approach so weigh the
pros/cons carefully.

merlin

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Christian Elmerot
Date:
Subject: Re: CPUs for new databases
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: CPUs for new databases