On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:49:18PM +0100, Simon Slavin wrote: > On 8 Oct 2010, at 5:48pm, Stephan Wehner wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Michele Pradella > > <michele.prade...@selea.com> wrote: > >> "science fiction?" was a rhetorically question. I'm only wondering > >> about what is the best and fastest way to DELETE a lot of records from > >> huge DB. I know and understand physical limit of data moving: anyway for > >> now I'm trying to split the BIG DELETE in some smaller DELETE to spread > >> the time used. It's the only way I can figure out at the moment. > > > > Is a soft-delete faster? Then you could add a slow-moving delete > > (mentioned earlier by Aldes Rossi, for example) > > for the soft-deleted records. > > Soft-delete ? Is that having another column which is a '1' if the > record is supposed to exist and a '0' if it's supposed to be deleted ?
Use NULL to indicate deleted-ness. But note that you may still have to update lots of rows and indexes. Indeed, a true delete might not need much more I/O (whereas a VACUUM after the DELETE would). _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
