Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
- To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
- Cc: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 12:52:06 +0200
[snip] > It would be interesting to know what the bottleneck is for temp tables > for you. They do not go via the buffer-cache, they are stored in [snip] Is it possible that the temp table creation is the bottleneck ? Would that write into system catalogs ? If yes, maybe the system catalogs are not adequately vacuumed/analyzed. Just a thought. Cheers, Csaba.
- References:
- performance question (something to do w/ parameterized stmts?, wrong index types?)
- From: Jeffrey Tenny
- Re: performance question (something to do w/
- From: Mark Lewis
- Re: performance question (something to do w/
- From: Jim C. Nasby
- Re: performance question (something to do w/
- From: Tom Lane
- Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- From: PFC
- Re: Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- From: Christian Kratzer
- Re: Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- From: PFC
- Re: Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- From: Christian Kratzer
- Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- From: PFC
- Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- From: Martijn van Oosterhout
- performance question (something to do w/ parameterized stmts?, wrong index types?)
- Prev by Date: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- Next by Date: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- Previous by thread: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
- Indexes: