| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | <emilu(at)encs(dot)concordia(dot)ca>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Which update action quicker? | 
| Date: | 2014-09-24 13:48:36 | 
| Message-ID: | 5422CBB4.3000301@vmware.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance | 
On 09/23/2014 11:37 PM, Emi Lu wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> For a big table with more than 1,000,000 records, may I know which update is
> quicker please?
>
> (1) update t1
>         set c1 = a.c1
>         from a
>         where pk and
>                    t1.c1       <> a.c1;
>    ......
>         update t1
>         set c_N = a.c_N
>         from a
>         where pk and
>                    t1.c_N       <> a.c_N;
>
>
> (2)  update t1
>         set c1 = a.c1 ,
>               c2  = a.c2,
>               ...
>               c_N = a.c_N
>        from a
>        where pk AND
>                  (  t1.c1 <> a.c1 OR t1.c2 <> a.c2..... t1.c_N <> a.c_N)
Probably (2). <> is not indexable, so each update will have to perform a 
sequential scan of the table. With (2), you only need to scan it once, 
with (1) you have to scan it N times. Also, method (1) will update the 
same row multiple times, if it needs to have more than one column updated.
> Or other quicker way for update action?
If a large percentage of the table needs to be updated, it can be faster 
to create a new table, insert all the rows with the right values, drop 
the old table and rename the new one in its place. All in one transaction.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emi Lu | 2014-09-24 14:13:05 | Re: Which update action quicker? | 
| Previous Message | Mkrtchyan, Tigran | 2014-09-24 13:03:23 | Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4 |