| From: | Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)unicell(dot)co(dot)il> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Lengthy deletion |
| Date: | 2011-11-29 08:51:46 |
| Message-ID: | BB44747E-AED4-4A71-B02C-4BA7B7EEF784@unicell.co.il |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 29/11/2011, at 09:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Herouth Maoz" <herouth(at)unicell(dot)co(dot)il> writes:
>> I was instructed to delete old records from one of the tables in our production system. The deletion took hours and I had to stop it in mid-operation and reschedule it as a night job. But then I had to do the same when I got up in the morning and it was still running.
>
>> I got an interesting clue, though, when I canceled the deletion the second time around. I got the following error message:
>
>> Cancel request sent
>> ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
>> CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT 1 FROM ONLY "public"."sent_messages" x WHERE $1 OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) "subscription_id" FOR SHARE OF x"
>
> Yup, that's a clue all right. I'll bet a nickel that you don't
> have an index on the foreign key's referencing column (ie,
> sent_messages.subscription_id). That means each delete in
> the referenced table has to seqscan the referencing table to
> see if the delete would result in an FK violation.
Makes sense. But shouldn't that be figured into the EXPLAIN plan?
--
חרות מעוז
יוניסל פתרונות סלולריים מתקדמים
☎ 03-5181717 שלוחה 742
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-29 09:10:03 | Re: Lengthy deletion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-29 07:13:01 | Re: Lengthy deletion |