On 10/27/13, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> wrote: > Robert James wrote on 27.10.2013 20:47: >> I'm using Postgres for data analysis (interactive and batch). I need >> to focus the analysis on a subset of one table, and, for both >> performance and simplicity, have a function which loads that subset >> into another table (DELETE FROM another_table; INSERT INTO >> another_table SELECT ...). >> >> Oddly enough, although the SELECT itself is very quick (< 1 s), the >> DELETE and INSERT can take over a minute! I can't figure out why. >> another_table is simple: it has only 7 fields. Two of those fields >> are indexed, using a simple one field standard index. There are no >> triggers on it. >> >> What is the cause of this behavior? What should I do to make this >> faster? Is there a recommended work around? >> >> (I'm hesitant to drop another_table and recreate it each time, since >> many views depend on it.) > > DELETE can be a quite lengthy thing to do - especially with a large number > of rows. > > If you use TRUNCATE instead, this will be *much* quicker with the additional > benefit, > that if you INSERT the rows in the same transaction, the INSERT will require > much less > I/O because it's not logged. >
Changing DELETE to TRUNCATE and putting it all in a transaction brought the time down to 40 seconds. But this is still awfully slow, when the SELECT is under a second.
How many rows are being inserted?
Is there another problem here? Perhaps something to do with triggerring autovacuum?
Or should I be using a different type of table for work tables? (RAM only table)
You could use a TEMP or UNLOGGED table depending on how long you need it to stay around (for these types of tables data won't be forced to disk before returning from the COMMIT).
