| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "P(dot)J(dot) \"Josh\" Rovero" <rovero(at)sonalysts(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Delete Performance |
| Date: | 2001-11-17 02:21:34 |
| Message-ID: | 18528.1005963694@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"P.J. \"Josh\" Rovero" <rovero(at)sonalysts(dot)com> writes:
> But even with sequential scan, the catalog entries are
> deleted quickly (30K records in just a couple of seconds),
> vice slow deletes (2 per second) for the toasted text.
> The catalog entries are about 200 bytes (integers, timestamps,
> a couple of short fixed length strings), while the toasted
> text table has one short text field, one timestamp, and one
> long (2K to 20K bytes) toasted text field.
I observed over in pg-hackers that deletion speed seems to be
proportional to total volume of data deleted, but that's not enough
to explain your results. You're reporting a 10000X speed difference
with only 10-100X difference in data volume, so there's still a large
factor to be accounted for.
Are you sure you don't have any rules, triggers, foreign keys involving
the slower table?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-17 02:44:22 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-17 02:15:20 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-17 02:44:22 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-17 02:15:20 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |