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

From Ivan Voras
Subject Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Date
Msg-id ia8tvj$15r$1@dough.gmane.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
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.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: CPUs for new databases
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle