| From: | Edmund Dengler <edmundd(at)eSentire(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Slow deletes |
| Date: | 2002-08-13 02:40:52 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.44.0208122238460.8305-100000@cyclops4.esentire.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks! That seems to have been the issue!
=> explain delete from syslog_event where event_id = 1000::int8;
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
Index Scan using syslog_event_event_id_idx on syslog_event
(cost=0.00..3.02 rows=1 width=6)
EXPLAIN
Deleting a single row now takes only about 5 seconds.
Regards,
Ed
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Edmund Dengler <edmundd(at)eSentire(dot)com> writes:
> > Can anyone explain why these deletes are extremely slow?
>
> > => explain delete from syslog_event where event_id = 1001;
> > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> > Seq Scan on syslog_event (cost=0.00..342277.67 rows=1 width=6)
>
> > There are over 5,000,000 rows in the table.
>
> Seqscan on a 5M-row table will take a little while...
>
> Your problem is that it's not using an indexscan, and the reason
> for that is that '1001' is taken as an integer not a bigint. The
> system is not smart about optimizing cross-datatype comparisons
> into indexscans. You could write
>
> delete from syslog_event where event_id = 1001::int8;
>
> (or use CAST if you want to be pedantically standards-compliant).
> Alternatively, consider whether event_id really needs to be bigint.
> There's a clear notational advantage in plain integer.
>
> Yes, it'd be nice if "bigintcol = 1001" acted more reasonably,
> and someday we'll make it happen ... but doing so without breaking
> the system's type-extensibility features is not trivial.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-13 02:57:02 | Re: Slow deletes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-13 02:34:23 | Re: Slow deletes |