From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tim Uckun <timuckun(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Updates, deletes and inserts are very slow. What can I do make them bearable? |
Date: | 2010-10-21 04:31:20 |
Message-ID: | 12584.1287635480@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tim Uckun <timuckun(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Here is the actual query.
> update consolidated_urls
> set screenshot_file_name = tu.screenshot_file_name,
> screenshot_content_type = tu.screenshot_content_type,
> screenshot_file_size = tu.screenshot_file_size,
> screenshot_status = tu.screenshot_status
> from consolidated_urls cu
> inner join trending_urls tu on tu.consolidated_url_id = cu.id
> This is a simple inner join.
No, it isn't. This is a three-way join between consolidated_urls, cu,
and tu --- the fact that cu is the same underlying table as
consolidated_urls doesn't change that. And the join is
underconstrained, causing each row of consolidated_urls to be joined
to every row of the cu/tu join. That's why it's taking such an
unreasonably long time --- you're generating many thousands of redundant
updates to each row of consolidated_urls. You should just write this as
update consolidated_urls
set screenshot_file_name = tu.screenshot_file_name,
screenshot_content_type = tu.screenshot_content_type,
screenshot_file_size = tu.screenshot_file_size,
screenshot_status = tu.screenshot_status
from trending_urls tu where tu.consolidated_url_id = consolidated_urls.id
Postgres is a bit different from some other DBMSes in how it interprets
UPDATE ... FROM syntax.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2010-10-21 04:35:11 | Re: Generate a dynamic sequence within a query |
Previous Message | Reid Thompson | 2010-10-21 04:28:48 | Re: Cannot Start Postgres After System Boot |