Re: automated row deletion - Mailing list pgsql-general

From John R Pierce
Subject Re: automated row deletion
Date
Msg-id 4ACCC951.80303@hogranch.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: automated row deletion  (Dave Huber <DHuber@letourneautechnologies.com>)
Responses Re: automated row deletion
List pgsql-general
Dave Huber wrote:
>
> A colleague gave me the following query to run:
>
>
>
> DELETE FROM data_log_20msec_table WHERE (log_id IN (SELECT log_id FROM
> data_log_20msec_table ORDER BY log_id DESC OFFSET 10000000))
>
> ...
>
> This query keeps the most recent 10 million rows and deletes the
> remaining ones. If I call this once a minute, it would be deleting
> 3000 rows each time. Is there a way to optimize this statement?
> Postgres was setup with default configuration. Is there anything we
> can change in the configuration to make this run more efficiently? The
> table is defined as below:
>
> ...
>
> Is there anything we can do here that can optimize the deletion of rows?
>
>
>

as I previously wrote...


I think you'll find row deletes would kill your performance.   For time
aged data like that, we use partitioned tables, we typically do it by
the week (keeping 6 months of history), but you might end up doing it by
N*1000 PK values or some such, so you can use your PK to determine the
partition.   With a partitioning scheme, its much faster to add a new
one and drop the oldest at whatever interval you need.   See
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ddl-partitioning.html



based on the numbers you give above, I think I'd do it by 100000 log_id
values, so you'd end up with 101 partition tables, and every half hour
or so you'd truncate the oldest partition and start a new one (reusing
the previously oldest in a round robin fashion).   truncate is 1000s of
times faster than delete.







pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Dave Huber
Date:
Subject: Re: automated row deletion
Next
From: "Loic d'Anterroches"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump with 1100 schemas being a bit slow