On Mon, 19 May 2003 19:19:32 -0400, David W Noon wrote:
> On Monday 19 May 2003 20:11 in <baba9i$2vi8$1@news.hub.org>, Jeff Boes
> (jboes@nexcerpt.com) wrote:
>
>> What factors affect the performance of a temp table insert?
>
> I would run an EXPLAIN on each of the two servers and see what
> differences there are in the respective execution strategies.
>
Hmm ... I'm not sure you followed my original post. However, in the
interests of science:
explain insert into temp_link_checksums values ('a');
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0)
EXPLAIN
This is identical on the two systems. As I would expect for an insert
statement ...
> Also, a VACUUM ANALYZE might be of interest to speed up the slower box.
But the table doesn't exist before I create and insert it. (Well,
actually it does: after the first CREATE, the subsequent uses of the
table are preceded by TRUNCATE TABLE, so it exists but is empty. I dunno
what a VACUUM ANALYZE will do for an insert, though.)
--
Jeff Boes vox 269.226.9550 ext 24
Database Engineer fax 269.349.9076
Nexcerpt, Inc. http://www.nexcerpt.com ...Nexcerpt... Extend your Expertise
