| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: update == delete + insert? |
| Date: | 2006-03-20 23:22:45 |
| Message-ID: | 8909.1142896965@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Craig A. James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> writes:
> I've seen it said here several times that "update == delete + insert". On the other hand, I've noticed that "alter table [add|drop] column ..." is remarkably fast, even for very large tables, which leads me to wonder whether each column's contents are in a file specifically for that column.
No. The reason "drop column" is fast is that we make no attempt to
remove the data from existing rows; we only mark the column's entry in
the system catalogs as deleted. "add column" is only fast if you are
adding a column with no default (a/k/a default NULL). In that case
likewise we don't have to modify existing rows; the desired behavior
falls out from the fact that the tuple access routines return NULL if
asked to fetch a column beyond those existing in a particular tuple.
You can read about the storage layout in
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/storage.html
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PFC | 2006-03-20 23:27:04 | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec |
| Previous Message | Miguel | 2006-03-20 23:15:01 | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec |