Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Maintenance of temporary tables |
---|---|
Author | Helen Borrie |
Post date | 2004-06-22T13:50:12Z |
At 03:31 PM 22/06/2004 +0200, you wrote:
inefficient if you have a lot of duplications in one or two of index key
columns. So that's a "plus" for deleting as you go.
make sure that any transactions on the table are hard-committed.
probably better to delete as you go. If the performance keeps up, I'd go
for the nightly bulk delete with a hard commit, and follow it up with a sweep.
/heLen
>Hello,Because of the compound index, it's possible the index will become very
>
>I'm using a fake temporary table to hold lists of IDs. It has two fields :
>LISTID and ID.
>The common scenario is that I insert records in this table at the start of a
>tansaction and delete them all when committing, so that the table always
>"looks" empty.
>
>I expect to insert and delete at most 300000 rows a day (10 consecutive days
>per month).
>
>What kind of issues should I expect and how should I prevent them ?
inefficient if you have a lot of duplications in one or two of index key
columns. So that's a "plus" for deleting as you go.
>Some ideas ...If you're sweeping nightly anyway, forget about trying to force GC - just
>
>Should I issue a "Select count(*)" every once in a while during the day to
>take care of GC, or should I leave that up the nightly SWEEP ?
make sure that any transactions on the table are hard-committed.
>Should I delete rows during production at all, or instead leave that up to aDepends on the index. If you notice things tending to slow down, you're
>nightly bulk_deletes_task ? (The table has a unique compound index, so I
>think it shouldn't introduce to much performance penalty)
probably better to delete as you go. If the performance keeps up, I'd go
for the nightly bulk delete with a hard commit, and follow it up with a sweep.
/heLen