Re: PostgreSQL db, 30 tables with number of rows < 100 (not huge) - the fastest way to clean each non-empty table and reset unique identifier column of empty ones.
Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>
From: Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>
Cc: Stanislaw Pankevich <s.pankevich@gmail.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-07-06T13:38:44Z
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 07/06/2012 07:38 PM, Daniel Farina wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au> wrote: >> 1) Truncate each table. It is too slow, I think, especially for empty >> tables. >> >> Really?!? TRUNCATE should be extremely fast, especially on empty tables. >> >> You're aware that you can TRUNCATE many tables in one run, right? >> >> TRUNCATE TABLE a, b, c, d, e, f, g; > I have seen in "trivial" cases -- in terms of data size -- where > TRUNCATE is much slower than a full-table DELETE. The most common use > case for that is rapid setup/teardown of tests, where it can add up > quite quickly and in a very big way. This is probably an artifact the > speed of one's file system to truncate and/or unlink everything. That makes some sense, actually. DELETEing from a table that has no foreign keys, triggers, etc while nothing else is accessing the table is fairly cheap and doesn't take much (any?) cleanup work afterwards. For tiny deletes I can easily see it being better than forcing the OS to journal a metadata change or two and a couple of fsync()s for a truncate. I suspect truncating many tables at once will prove a win over iteratively DELETEing from many tables at once. I'd benchmark it except that it's optimizing something I don't care about at all, and the results would be massively dependent on the file system (ext3, ext4, xfs) and its journal configuration. -- Craig Ringer