| From: | Bill House <wch-tech(at)house-grp(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Capacity questions |
| Date: | 2012-06-17 18:11:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4FDE1DC0.4070500@house-grp.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
On 06/17/2012 01:02 PM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Bill House <wch-tech(at)house-grp(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> I have a written a script which does what I want it to do on a table
>> with 999 records.
>>
>> I was wondering if there is anything I need to consider if I run this
>> script on a table with 1.1 million records?
> It looks fine for me. The only note is that, I may be wrong, but
> "UPDATE %s SET del = False" updates the records having del already
> false too, taking more time and creating unnecessary bloat. Adding
> "WHERE del" may help keeping the bloat to the minimum.
>
> -- Daniele
>
>
You are referring to the first SQL command, and you are correct. And on
a table this size, time is a consideration; even if it is a one-time task.
Thanks very much.
Regards,
Bill
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-06-17 18:17:19 | Re: Capacity questions |
| Previous Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2012-06-17 18:02:17 | Re: Capacity questions |