| From: | Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthew Woodcraft <matthew(at)woodcraft(dot)me(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation |
| Date: | 2012-07-12 01:23:16 |
| Message-ID: | 4FFE2704.7020106@ringerc.id.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 07/12/2012 02:10 AM, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> I think a documentation change would be worthwhile. At the moment the
> TRUNCATE page says, with no caveats, that it is faster than
> unqualified DELETE.
+1 to updating the docs to reflect the fact that TRUNCATE may have a
higher fixed cost than DELETE FROM table; but also prevents bloat.
It's a weird little corner case, but with database-backed unit testing
it's going to become a more significant one whether or not it feels like
it makes any sense.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-07-12 01:26:14 | Re: DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-07-11 23:27:25 | Re: Event Triggers reduced, v1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-07-12 01:26:14 | Re: DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation |
| Previous Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2012-07-12 01:07:00 | Re: how could select id=xx so slow? |