"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Note that the 150 disk writes were for the CREATE and the DROP. Does > that mean that we'd actually shave 84 of 150 writes?
It really shouldn't be the case that each system catalog tuple insertion generates a separate write --- especially not for multiple insertions into the same catalog, which we could expect to go into the same page or few pages. I think a large fraction of the writes you're measuring are coming from the file create/unlink operations. It would certainly be important to identify where the bulk of the cost *really* is before we start expending effort on a solution. > In suggesting this enhancement, my hope is that each session could > check for a referenced table as a temporary in RAM before going to the > system tables, in a manner vaguely similar to how space reserved by > the temp_buffers GUC is used for temp table data. This isn't very workable. For one thing, client-side operations such as psql's \dt still need to see catalog entries for temp tables. There's been some handwaving about keeping catalog entries for temp tables in temp children of the main system catalogs, but it hasn't got past the handwaving stage. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers