From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORMANCE] slow small delete on large table |
Date: | 2004-02-24 05:23:58 |
Message-ID: | 18315.1077600238@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Ed L." <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> writes:
> If I could say it the way I think for a simple example, it'd be
> like this:
> delete from mytable
> where posteddatetime < now() - '90 days'
> limit 100;
> Of course, that's not legal 7.3.4 syntax.
Assuming you have a primary key on the table, consider this:
CREATE TEMP TABLE doomed AS
SELECT key FROM mytable WHERE posteddatetime < now() - '90 days'
LIMIT 100;
DELETE FROM mytable WHERE key = doomed.key;
DROP TABLE doomed;
Depending on the size of mytable, you might need an "ANALYZE doomed"
in there, but I'm suspecting not. A quick experiment suggests that
you'll get a plan with an inner indexscan on mytable.key, which is
exactly what you need.
See also Chris Browne's excellent suggestions nearby, if you are willing
to make larger readjustments in your thinking...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Eric Jain | 2004-02-24 12:07:10 | Re: Slow join using network address function |
Previous Message | Kevin Brown | 2004-02-24 03:56:02 | Re: Column correlation drifts, index ignored again |