On 05/30/2011 08:08 PM, Jarrod Chesney wrote:
My database uses joined table inheritance and my server version is 9.0
I have about 120,000 records in the table that everything else inherits from, if i
truncate-cascaded this table it happens almost instantly. If i run 30,000 prepared "DELE
I'm executing 30,000 single delete statements in one transaction.
At this point i'm looking into combining the multiple deletes into one
statement and breaking my big transaction into smaller ones of about 100
deletes or so.
On 01/06/2011, at 11:40 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 1/06/2011 7:11 A
On 1/06/2011 7:11 AM, Pierre C wrote:
If i run 30,000 prepared "DELETE FROM xxx WHERE "ID" = ?" commands it
takes close to 10 minutes.
Do you run those in a single transaction or do you use one transaction
per DELETE ?
In the latter case, postgres will ensure each transaction is commited to
di
2011/5/31 Robert Haas :
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:33 AM, panam wrote:
>> Any third party confirmation?
>
> Yeah, it definitely looks like there is some kind of bug here. Or if
> not a bug, then a very surprising feature. EXPLAIN ANALYZE outputs
> from your proposed test attached. Here's a uni
If i run 30,000 prepared "DELETE FROM xxx WHERE "ID" = ?" commands it
takes close to 10 minutes.
Do you run those in a single transaction or do you use one transaction per
DELETE ?
In the latter case, postgres will ensure each transaction is commited to
disk, at each commit. Since this in
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:33 AM, panam wrote:
> Any third party confirmation?
Yeah, it definitely looks like there is some kind of bug here. Or if
not a bug, then a very surprising feature. EXPLAIN ANALYZE outputs
from your proposed test attached. Here's a unified diff of the two
outputs:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> So if you're running a RHEL5.4 or RHEL5.5 system, are you basically
> stuck with ext3? I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly, but ISTM
> that you've been uncomfortable with BOTH ext4 and XFS prior to RHEL6;
> but OK with both beginning
On 05/31/2011 10:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
So if you're running a RHEL5.4 or RHEL5.5 system, are you basically
stuck with ext3? I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly, but ISTM
that you've been uncomfortable with BOTH ext4 and XFS prior to RHEL6;
but OK with both beginning with RHEL6.
We h
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 05/23/2011 06:16 PM, John Rouillard wrote:
>>
>> OS: centos 5.5
>> Filesystem: data - ext4 (note 4 not 3); 6.6T formatted
>> wal - ext4; 1.5T formatted
>> Raid: data - level 10, 8 disk wd2003; controller LSI MegaRAID SAS 9260-4i
Hi All,
I have created partition on table Round_Action , which has 3 child partition
tables.
When I am firing a simple select query with limit on parent table it is
taking huge time to execute. But when I am firing this query directly on
child table it is taking few milliseconds.
EXP.
select *
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:31 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Where they are most helpful is for masking of i/o if
>> a page gets dirtied >1 times before it's written out to the heap
>
> Another possible benefit of higher shared_buffers is that it
9.0rc1 ?
You know that the stable 9.0 has been out for quite a while now.
Its not going to affect the delete speed in any way, but I would
generally advice you to upgrade it to the lates 9.0.x
As for the delete it self, check if you have indices on the tables
that refer the main table on the refer
12 matches
Mail list logo
