On Fri, 2023-07-21 at 09:43 +0800, gzh wrote:
> The definitions of the columns used in SQL are as follows.
>
> TBL_SHA
>
> ms_cd character(6) NOT NULL -- PRIMARY KEY
> et_cd character(8)
> etrys character(8)
>
> TBL_INF
>
> ms_cd character(6) NOT NULL -- PRIMARY KEY
> ry_cd
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 08:57:05AM +0800, jian he wrote:
> hi.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pageinspect.html#id-1.11.7.34.6
>
> > This is a B-tree leaf page. All tuples that point to the table happen to be
> > posting list tuples (all of which store a total of 100 6 byte
hi.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pageinspect.html#id-1.11.7.34.6
> This is a B-tree leaf page. All tuples that point to the table happen to be
> posting list tuples (all of which store a total of 100 6 byte TIDs).
> There is also a “high key” tuple at itemoffset number 1. ctid is
On 7/23/23 05:27, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2023-07-23 06:09:03 -0400, Gus Spier wrote:
Ah! Truncating a table does not entail all of WAL processes. From the
documentation, "TRUNCATE quickly removes all rows from a set of tables. It has
the same effect as an unqualified DELETE on each table,
On 2023-07-23 06:09:03 -0400, Gus Spier wrote:
> Ah! Truncating a table does not entail all of WAL processes. From the
> documentation, "TRUNCATE quickly removes all rows from a set of tables. It has
> the same effect as an unqualified DELETE on each table, but since it does not
> actually scan
Ah! Truncating a table does not entail all of WAL processes. From the
documentation, "TRUNCATE quickly removes all rows from a set of tables. It
has the same effect as an unqualified DELETE on each table, but since it
does not actually scan the tables it is faster. Furthermore, it reclaims
disk
On 2023-07-22 16:37:39 -0400, Gus Spier wrote:
> Isn’t this a perfect opportunity to use the TRUNCATE command to
> quickly remove the data? And follow up by deleting the now empty
> tables?
What's the advantage of first truncating and then deleting a table over
just deleting it?
hp
--
