From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Luca Tettamanti <kronos(dot)it(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jerry Champlin <jchamplin(at)absolute-performance(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DELETE performance problem |
Date: | 2009-11-24 15:36:39 |
Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0911240736g7617abe3t49578f25a88eadef@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2009/11/24 Luca Tettamanti <kronos(dot)it(at)gmail(dot)com>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Jerry Champlin
>> <jchamplin(at)absolute-performance(dot)com> wrote:
>> > You may want to consider using partitioning. That way you can drop the
>> > appropriate partition and never have the overhead of a delete.
>>
>> Hum, I don't think it's doable in my case; the partitioning is not
>> know a priori. First t1 is fully populated, then the data is loaded
>> and manipulated by my application, the result is stored in t2; only
>> then I want to remove (part of) the data from t1.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Luca
>>
>>
> It's a shame there isn't a LIMIT option on DELETE so this can be done in
> small batches.
>
you sort of can do it, using PK on table as pointer. DELETE FROM foo USING
... etc.
with subquery in using that will limit number of rows ;)
>
> Thom
>
--
GJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-11-24 15:41:09 | Re: [PERFORM] Strange performance degradation |
Previous Message | Lorenzo Allegrucci | 2009-11-24 15:32:25 | Re: [PERFORM] Strange performance degradation |