Re: Delete Performance

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)