[HACKERS] temp_buffers vs temp vs local and explain

2017-03-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-hackers, I was reviewing an explain plan today and with some help from Andrew G, I got a lot more information than I deserved. It did however bring up quite a usability issue that I think we should consider. Let's review the following two lines: Sort Method: external merge Disk: 19352kB

Re: [HACKERS] temp_buffers

2005-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:16:58PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Can someone give me a reasonable explanation of what temp_buffers is for? > Number of buffers to be used for temp tables. Think shared_buffers, but > local to a connection instead of s

Re: [HACKERS] temp_buffers

2005-07-07 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:16:58PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Can someone give me a reasonable explanation of what temp_buffers is for? Number of buffers to be used for temp tables. Think shared_buffers, but local to a connection instead of shared. They are also used for new relations, in

[HACKERS] temp_buffers

2005-07-07 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, Can someone give me a reasonable explanation of what temp_buffers is for? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hos