Re: TRUNCATE TABLE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Adriaan van Os <postgres(at)microbizz(dot)nl>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE TABLE
Date: 2007-07-11 21:54:45
Message-ID: 3561.1184190885@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Adriaan van Os <postgres(at)microbizz(dot)nl> writes:
> Surprisingly, one of the bottlenecks is TRUNCATE TABLE and that
> command is really slow as compared to other operations.

When you don't quantify that statement at all, it's hard to make an
intelligent comment on it, but TRUNCATE per se shouldn't be slow.
Are you sure you are not measuring a delay to obtain exclusive lock
on the table before it can be truncated (ie, waiting for other
transactions to finish with it)?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-07-11 22:15:52 Re: TRUNCATE TABLE
Previous Message Patric de Waha 2007-07-11 20:48:51 Re: Two questions.. shared_buffers and long reader issue