> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for your response, enlightening as always.
>
> > Not at present --- temp tables are not different from real tables,
> > except for some naming shenanigans. So creation of a temp table will
> > involve some disk hits.
>
> Ok, would it be a good idea to modify that for the future? Given that
> temp tables:-
> a) can't be seen by other connections.
> b) are likely to be selected upon heavily close to creation time.
> c) are likely to be short lived.
> is there any reason to move them out to disk unless strictly
> necessary (aside from that it may take a fair bit of
> re-engineering and the core developers have other more important
> and/or more interesting things to be getting on with)?
If the temp table doesn't fit in memory, we will have to put it in
backing store somewhere, and a disk is the logical place, right? I
don't see a huge advantage of putting it in memory. We could prevent
WAL writes for temp tables. That would help.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
