Thread: Feature request: Truncate table
Deletion of data from a PostgreSQL table is very slow. It would be nice to have a very fast delete like "truncate table." Now, truncate is a very dangerous command because it is not logged (but the same is true for other operations like bulk copy and select into). So one needs to be careful how this command is granted. The same damage (accidental deletion of all data) can be done by drop table just as easily. I frequently have to do this right now in PostgreSQL, but I simply emulate it by drop table/create table.
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 14:32, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Deletion of data from a PostgreSQL table is very slow.
>
> It would be nice to have a very fast delete like "truncate table."
>
> Now, truncate is a very dangerous command because it is not logged (but
> the same is true for other operations like bulk copy and select into).
> So one needs to be careful how this command is granted. The same damage
> (accidental deletion of all data) can be done by drop table just as
> easily.
>
> I frequently have to do this right now in PostgreSQL, but I simply
> emulate it by drop table/create table.
It's there:
$ psql
Welcome to psql, the PostgreSQL interactive terminal.
Type: \copyright for distribution terms \h for help with SQL commands \? for help on internal slash commands
\g or terminate with semicolon to execute query \q to quit
ler=# select version(); version
---------------------------------------------------------------------PostgreSQL 7.2.1 on i386-portbld-freebsd4.6,
compiledby GCC 2.95.3
(1 row)
ler=# \h truncate
Command: TRUNCATE
Description: empty a table
Syntax:
TRUNCATE [ TABLE ] name
ler=#
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
Deletion of data from a PostgreSQL table is very slow. It would be nice to have a very fast delete like "truncate table." Now, truncate is a very dangerous command because it is not logged (but the same is true for other operations like bulkcopy and select into). So one needs to be careful how this command is granted. The same damage (accidental deletionof all data) can be done by drop table just as easily. I frequently have to do this right now in PostgreSQL, but I simply emulate it by drop table/create table. What is a TRUNCATE TABLE but a drop create anyway? Is there some technical difference? -- Billy O'Connor
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 13:37, Billy O'Connor wrote: > Deletion of data from a PostgreSQL table is very slow. > > It would be nice to have a very fast delete like "truncate table." > > Now, truncate is a very dangerous command because it is not logged (but > the same is true for other operations like bulk copy and select into). > So one needs to be careful how this command is granted. The same damage > (accidental deletion of all data) can be done by drop table just as > easily. > > I frequently have to do this right now in PostgreSQL, but I simply > emulate it by drop table/create table. > > What is a TRUNCATE TABLE but a drop create anyway? Is there some > technical difference? > It doesn't kill indexes/triggers/constraints/Foreign Key Stuff, etc. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
> -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Rosenman [mailto:ler@lerctr.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Dann Corbit > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Feature request: Truncate table > > > On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 14:32, Dann Corbit wrote: > > Deletion of data from a PostgreSQL table is very slow. > > > > It would be nice to have a very fast delete like "truncate table." > > > > Now, truncate is a very dangerous command because it is not > logged (but > > the same is true for other operations like bulk copy and > select into). > > So one needs to be careful how this command is granted. > The same damage > > (accidental deletion of all data) can be done by drop table just as > > easily. > > > > I frequently have to do this right now in PostgreSQL, but I simply > > emulate it by drop table/create table. > It's there: > $ psql > Welcome to psql, the PostgreSQL interactive terminal. > > Type: \copyright for distribution terms > \h for help with SQL commands > \? for help on internal slash commands > \g or terminate with semicolon to execute query > \q to quit > > ler=# select version(); > version > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > PostgreSQL 7.2.1 on i386-portbld-freebsd4.6, compiled by GCC 2.95.3 > (1 row) > > ler=# \h truncate > Command: TRUNCATE > Description: empty a table > Syntax: > TRUNCATE [ TABLE ] name > > ler=# Well bust my buttons! Now that's service! ;-) I am busily doing a Win32 port of PostgreSQL 7.2.1 right now, so that is wonderful news.
Well in Ingres there is a WORLD of difference! For a start, you don't lock out the system catalog. Secondly it is an unlogged event, so it beats "delete from table_name" hands down! Then, of course, it preserves all permissions, you keep the same OID, so views, et al, can remain in tact, as with other objects that referece it. These are very important considerations in real-world applications esp. when a large number of objects may reference the table. Which brings me to another point - I would dearly love to see a "refresh" option based on object name added to the system. This would check all references to a dropped object, by name, and repoint them to the new instance of that object (i.e. if you do a drop/create, it doesn't mess up your entire system if you forgot about a view or three!). Maybe a special "drop" and "create" can be added. Like "drop to create" or maybe simply "recreate", which tells PG that the object should be treated as if it is dropped then recreated, but updating all the references to it or perhaps even reusing the OID? The point being that alter table doesn't quite fill the hole (it comes close though) and truncate isn't a schema-changing facility, merely a data cropping one. Who knows? PG may even be credited with a seriously useful extension to SQL that may find its way into the standard at some time! Brad Billy O'Connor wrote: > Deletion of data from a PostgreSQL table is very slow. > > It would be nice to have a very fast delete like "truncate table." > > Now, truncate is a very dangerous command because it is not logged (but > the same is true for other operations like bulk copy and select into). > So one needs to be careful how this command is granted. The same damage > (accidental deletion of all data) can be done by drop table just as > easily. > > I frequently have to do this right now in PostgreSQL, but I simply > emulate it by drop table/create table. > > What is a TRUNCATE TABLE but a drop create anyway? Is there some > technical difference? > > -- > Billy O'Connor > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
Bradley Kieser wrote: > Well in Ingres there is a WORLD of difference! For a start, you don't > lock out the system catalog. Secondly it is an unlogged event, so it > beats "delete from table_name" hands down! Then, of course, it preserves > all permissions, you keep the same OID, so views, et al, can remain in > tact, as with other objects that referece it. > > These are very important considerations in real-world applications esp. > when a large number of objects may reference the table. > > > Which brings me to another point - I would dearly love to see a > "refresh" option based on object name added to the system. This would > check all references to a dropped object, by name, and repoint them to > the new instance of that object (i.e. if you do a drop/create, it > doesn't mess up your entire system if you forgot about a view or three!). We have actually be moving away from name-based linking so you can rename tables and things still work. I can see value in a relinking system, but we would have to know the old oid and new name, I guess. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> > What is a TRUNCATE TABLE but a drop create anyway? Is there some > > technical difference? > > > It doesn't kill indexes/triggers/constraints/Foreign Key Stuff, etc. Hrm - last time I checked it did... Chris
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 03:47, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > What is a TRUNCATE TABLE but a drop create anyway? Is there some > > > technical difference? > > > > > It doesn't kill indexes/triggers/constraints/Foreign Key Stuff, etc. > > Hrm - last time I checked it did... Two questions : When was the last time ? It did what ? ------------- Hannu
> > Hrm - last time I checked it did... > > Two questions : > > When was the last time ? 7.1 > It did what ? Drops triggers and stuff. OK, I did a check and it looks like it's fixed in 7.2 at least. Sorry for the false alarm... Chris
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > Hrm - last time I checked it did... > > > > Two questions : > > > > When was the last time ? > > 7.1 > > > It did what ? > > Drops triggers and stuff. > > OK, I did a check and it looks like it's fixed in 7.2 at least. Sorry for > the false alarm... It has never "dropped triggers and stuff", so there was nothing to fix. All TRUNCATE TABLE has ever done, since the patch was submitted, was to truncate the underlying relation file and the associated index files, and reinitialize the indexes. It has been changed to be disallowed in transactions involving tables not created in the same transaction, but that's about it. People have argued that if there are *RI* triggers on a table, that TRUNCATE should be disallowed, as in Oracle. But TRUNCATE from inception to date has never dropped triggers... Mike Mascari mascarm@mascari.com