From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jonatan Evald Buus <jonatan(dot)buus(at)cellpointmobile(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Poor performance for delete query |
Date: | 2014-04-24 21:25:03 |
Message-ID: | 29874.1398374703@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jonatan Evald Buus <jonatan(dot)buus(at)cellpointmobile(dot)com> writes:
> On 24 April 2014 22:29, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'd really have to bet that you forgot to index one of the referencing
>> tables.
> *That was our first thought, so we went through the child tables to check
> but apparently we missed some. (please see below for the difference in the
> explain analyze output)*
I'm confused. Your second EXPLAIN ANALYZE looks like you fixed the
problem. Are you still thinking there's an issue?
> Why is "order2transaction_fk" being triggered twice? Is that because
> there're two affected rows?
No, I'd have expected a delete of multiple rows to show as calls=N,
not N separate entries.
Maybe there are recursive queries buried under here somewhere?
That is, are you expecting any of the cascaded deletes to cascade further?
I don't recall exactly what EXPLAIN is likely to do with such cases.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonatan Evald Buus | 2014-04-25 05:04:59 | Re: Poor performance for delete query |
Previous Message | Jonatan Evald Buus | 2014-04-24 20:57:05 | Re: Poor performance for delete query |