From: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, SunWuKung <Balazs(dot)Klein(at)axelero(dot)hu> |
Subject: | Re: best practice in upgrading db structure |
Date: | 2006-03-31 19:29:56 |
Message-ID: | 5D50A2A4-AC10-4AF1-8096-219B1587533F@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:40 PM, Robert Treat wrote:
>> Depends on how much data you need to modify. For small tables, I
>> stick
>> with ALTER TABLE because it's a lot cleaner/easier. For larger
>> tables,
>> you might want to CREATE TABLE AS SELECT ..., or maybe copy out
>> and copy
>> back in.
>
> This seems backwards to me. On larger tables I tend to favor alter
> table for
> adding/dropping columns since the table doesn't need to be
> rewritten, and on
> smaller tables I'd be more likely to use CTAS (although even then
> still
> pretty unlikely)
It depends on what exactly you're doing. For example, if you're
adding a new field and have to populate it with data, you end up
rewriting the entire table, but in a way that leads to considerable
bloat. Of course if you can get away without re-writing the entire
table you absolutely want to go that route.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jerry LeVan | 2006-03-31 20:37:34 | MediaWiki and Postgresql? |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-03-31 19:26:34 | Re: best practice in upgrading db structure |