Hi Merlin, See below please On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Peter Kroon <plakr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've put up a small test case for creating TEMP and UNLOGGED tables. > > DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test CASCADE; > > CREATE TEMP TABLE test( > > id serial, > > the_value text > > ); > > Exec time: 54ms > > > > DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test CASCADE; > > CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE test( > > id serial, > > the_value text > > ); > > Exec time: 198ms > > > > There is a significant difference. > > > > Also I need those tables per session, so creating and dropping with TEMP > > tables appear to be faster. > > Performance of creating tables is going to be storage bound. what are > your performance requirements? Even if the temp table itself is moved > to ramdisk you have catalog updating. Usually from performance > standpoint, creation of temp tables is not interesting -- but there > are exceptions. If you need extremely fast creation/drop of tempe > tables, you probably need to reorganize into permanent table with > session local records using various tricks. > I am very interested in what you've written in the last sentence above, since it is exactly what my requirement is. Could you explain that a bit more? Best regards Seref > > merlin > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
