On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:45 PM Vladimir Ryabtsev
wrote:
> > The fundamental issue is that "ANY" has two meanings in PG, one of them
> following the SQL standard and one not:
>
> Oh yes, I was aware about two forms but it did not come into my mind, I
> was thinking I use the same form in both cas
> The fundamental issue is that "ANY" has two meanings in PG, one of them
following the SQL standard and one not:
Oh yes, I was aware about two forms but it did not come into my mind, I was
thinking I use the same form in both cases since my query returns only one
row and column.
Thanks for pointi
> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Ryabtsev writes:
>> The workaround is to do it like this instead:
Vladimir> Strange, I tried to do like this, but the first thing came
Vladimir> into my mind was array_agg() not array():
Vladimir> delete from log
Vladimir> where ctid = any(
Vladimir> selec
> The workaround is to do it like this instead:
Strange, I tried to do like this, but the first thing came into my
mind was array_agg()
not array():
delete from log
where ctid = any(
select array_agg(ctid) from (
select ctid from log
where timestamp < now() at time zone 'pst'
> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Ryabtsev writes:
Vladimir> I can't believe it.
Vladimir> I see some recommendations in Internet to do like this
well, 90% of what you read on the Internet is wrong.
Vladimir> Did it really work in 2011? Are you saying they broke it?
Vladimir> It's a shame...
Th
On 2018-Dec-17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Queries like yours are kinda sorta counterexamples to that, but pretty
> much all the ones I've seen seem like crude hacks (and this one is not
> an exception). Writing a bunch of code to support them feels like
> solving the wrong problem. Admittedly, it's not
OK, good to know.
I saw some timeout errors in the code writing to the log table during my
DELETE and decided they are relevant. Probably they had nothing to do with
my actions, need to investigate.
Thanks anyway.
Best regards,
Vlad
пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:32, Tom Lane :
>
> DELETE doesn't lock
Vladimir Ryabtsev writes:
> I see some recommendations in Internet to do like this (e.g.
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5170546/how-do-i-delete-a-fixed-number-of-rows-with-sorting-in-postgresql
> ).
> Did it really work in 2011?
No, or at least not any better than today. (For context, "gi
I can't believe it.
I see some recommendations in Internet to do like this (e.g.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5170546/how-do-i-delete-a-fixed-number-of-rows-with-sorting-in-postgresql
).
Did it really work in 2011? Are you saying they broke it? It's a shame...
Anyway I think the problem is
Vladimir Ryabtsev writes:
> I want to clean a large log table by chunks. I write such a query:
> delete from categorization.log
> where ctid in (
> select ctid from categorization.log
> where timestamp < now() - interval '2 month'
> limit 1000
> )
> Why does this query want to use Seq
I want to clean a large log table by chunks. I write such a query:
delete from categorization.log
where ctid in (
select ctid from categorization.log
where timestamp < now() - interval '2 month'
limit 1000
)
But I am getting the following weird plan:
[Plan 1]
Delete on log (cost=749
11 matches
Mail list logo
