Re: [HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:44 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote: I was reading the partitioning docs when I spotted this. I think it means to highlight the advantages of DROP TABLE over DELETE rather than ALTER TABLE. I guess they might mean ALTER TABLE .. NO INHERIT. But I think I agree that DROP TABLE would be better. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of lun jun 13 17:44:05 -0400 2011:
I was reading the partitioning docs when I spotted this. I think it means to
highlight the advantages of DROP TABLE over DELETE rather than ALTER TABLE.
I think the point of the existing wording is to point out
ALTER TABLE / NO INHERIT. I wonder if it's worth expanding the text to
mention both, such as
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
@@ -2320,7 +2320,9 @@ VALUES ('New York', NULL, NULL, 'NY');
para
Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing
partitions, if that requirement is planned into the partitioning design.
- commandALTER TABLE/ is far faster than a bulk operation.
+ commandALTER TABLE/ (to split out a sub-table from the partitioned
+ table) and commandDROP TABLE/ (to remove a partition altogether) are
+ both far faster than a bulk operation.
It also entirely avoids the commandVACUUM/command
overhead caused by a bulk commandDELETE/.
/para
However, this introductory text is supposed to be very brief; maybe we
should remove mention of specific commands here.
--
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of lun jun 13 17:44:05 -0400 2011: I was reading the partitioning docs when I spotted this. I think it means to highlight the advantages of DROP TABLE over DELETE rather than ALTER TABLE. I think the point of the existing wording is to point out ALTER TABLE / NO INHERIT. I wonder if it's worth expanding the text to mention both, such as - commandALTER TABLE/ is far faster than a bulk operation. + commandALTER TABLE/ (to split out a sub-table from the partitioned + table) and commandDROP TABLE/ (to remove a partition altogether) are + both far faster than a bulk operation. I think you need to spell out ALTER TABLE NO INHERIT if you are going to do that. This formulation seems to imply that *any* form of ALTER TABLE is fast, which surely ain't the truth. However, this introductory text is supposed to be very brief; maybe we should remove mention of specific commands here. No, I don't think it needs to be that brief. But if you think your version is too long, remove the parenthetical remarks. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: - commandALTER TABLE/ is far faster than a bulk operation. + commandALTER TABLE/ (to split out a sub-table from the partitioned + table) and commandDROP TABLE/ (to remove a partition altogether) are + both far faster than a bulk operation. I think you need to spell out ALTER TABLE NO INHERIT if you are going to do that. This formulation seems to imply that *any* form of ALTER TABLE is fast, which surely ain't the truth. However, this introductory text is supposed to be very brief; maybe we should remove mention of specific commands here. No, I don't think it needs to be that brief. But if you think your version is too long, remove the parenthetical remarks. +1 I think that would be perfect. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of mar jun 14 12:33:27 -0400 2011: On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: - commandALTER TABLE/ is far faster than a bulk operation. + commandALTER TABLE/ (to split out a sub-table from the partitioned + table) and commandDROP TABLE/ (to remove a partition altogether) are + both far faster than a bulk operation. I think you need to spell out ALTER TABLE NO INHERIT if you are going to do that. This formulation seems to imply that *any* form of ALTER TABLE is fast, which surely ain't the truth. However, this introductory text is supposed to be very brief; maybe we should remove mention of specific commands here. No, I don't think it needs to be that brief. But if you think your version is too long, remove the parenthetical remarks. +1 I think that would be perfect. Done that way (9.0 and beyond). -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Done that way (9.0 and beyond). Re-reading the actual commit, I notice that there's now a grammatical problem: the following sentence says It also entirely avoids the commandVACUUM/command overhead caused by a bulk commandDELETE/. which was okay when it referred to ALTER TABLE, but now that there are two commands mentioned in the previous sentence, it doesn't match. Perhaps These commands also avoid the regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:44 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
I was reading the partitioning docs when I spotted this. I think it means to
highlight the advantages of DROP TABLE over DELETE rather than ALTER TABLE.
Best,
David
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
index 4c9fc5d..0cdb800 100644
*** a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
*** VALUES ('New York', NULL, NULL, 'NY');
*** 2332,2338
para
Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing
partitions, if that requirement is planned into the partitioning
design.
! commandALTER TABLE/ is far faster than a bulk operation.
It also entirely avoids the commandVACUUM/command
overhead caused by a bulk commandDELETE/.
/para
--- 2332,2338
para
Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing
partitions, if that requirement is planned into the partitioning
design.
! commandDROP TABLE/ is far faster than a bulk operation.
It also entirely avoids the commandVACUUM/command
overhead caused by a bulk commandDELETE/.
/para
That looks weird. I'm sure that *used* to say DROP TABLE.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jun 14 13:04:30 -0400 2011: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Done that way (9.0 and beyond). Re-reading the actual commit, I notice that there's now a grammatical problem: the following sentence says It also entirely avoids the commandVACUUM/command overhead caused by a bulk commandDELETE/. which was okay when it referred to ALTER TABLE, but now that there are two commands mentioned in the previous sentence, it doesn't match. Perhaps These commands also avoid the Yeah, fixed. -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] ITYM DROP TABLE
I was reading the partitioning docs when I spotted this. I think it means to
highlight the advantages of DROP TABLE over DELETE rather than ALTER TABLE.
Best,
David
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
index 4c9fc5d..0cdb800 100644
*** a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
*** VALUES ('New York', NULL, NULL, 'NY');
*** 2332,2338
para
Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing
partitions, if that requirement is planned into the partitioning design.
! commandALTER TABLE/ is far faster than a bulk operation.
It also entirely avoids the commandVACUUM/command
overhead caused by a bulk commandDELETE/.
/para
--- 2332,2338
para
Bulk loads and deletes can be accomplished by adding or removing
partitions, if that requirement is planned into the partitioning design.
! commandDROP TABLE/ is far faster than a bulk operation.
It also entirely avoids the commandVACUUM/command
overhead caused by a bulk commandDELETE/.
/para
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
