Re: Attempting to delete excess rows from table with BATCH DELETE

More thoughts:
1. In cases where records are huge (bytea storing images) I added an inner
hourly loop.
2. Disable autovaccum on the table you're purging, then run pg_repack on it
and re-enable autovacuum.
3. pg_repack --no-order is a lot faster than having it order by the PK.
(You might *want* it ordered by an indexed date field, though.)

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 5:57 AM Gus Spier <gus(dot)spier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Thanks to all.
>
> I'll give the bash loop method a try and let you know how it works out.
>
> Regards to all,
> Gus
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 2:32 AM Olivier Gautherot
> <ogautherot(at)gautherot(dot)net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gus!
> >
> > This reminds me of a costly mistake I made and you want to avoid: it was
> a mission critical database (say physical safety, real people) and the
> vacuum froze the DB for 24 hours, until I finally took it offline.
> >
> > If you can take it offline (and you have a couple of hours)
> > - disconnect the DB
> > - drop indexes (that's the killer)
> > - remove unnecessary data
> > - vaccuum manually (or better, copy the relevant data to a new table and
> rename it - this will save the DELETE above and will defragment the table)
> > - rebuild indexes
> > - connect the DB
> >
> > The better solution would be partitioning:
> > - choose a metrics (for instance a timestamp)
> > - create partition tables for the period you want to keep
> > - copy the relevant data to the partitions and create partial indexes
> > - take the DB off line
> > - update the last partition with the latest data (should be a fast
> update)
> > - truncate the original table
> > - connect partitions
> > - connect the DB
> >
> > In the future, deleting historic data will be a simple DROP TABLE.
> >
> > Hope it helps
> > --
> > Olivier Gautherot
> > Tel: +33 6 02 71 92 23
> >
> >
> > El mié, 28 de ene de 2026, 5:06 a.m., Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> escribió:
> >>
> >> Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> > Hmm. Must have been START TRANSACTION which I remember causing
> issues in DO
> >> > blocks.
> >>
> >> Too lazy to test, but I think we might reject that. The normal rule
> >> in a procedure is that the next command after a COMMIT automatically
> >> starts a new transaction, so you don't need an explicit START.
> >>
> >> regards, tom lane
> >>
> >>
>

--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!