Daniel Farina <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > TRUNCATE should simply be very nearly the fastest way to remove data > from a table while retaining its type information, and if that means > doing DELETE without triggers when the table is small, then it should. > The only person who could thwart me is someone who badly wants their > 128K table to be exactly 8 or 0K, which seems unlikely given the 5MB > of catalog anyway. > Does that sound reasonable? As in, would anyone object if TRUNCATE > learned this behavior? Yes, I will push back on that. (1) We don't need the extra complexity. (2) I don't believe that you know where the performance crossover point would be (according to what metric, anyway?). (3) The performance of the truncation itself should not be viewed in isolation; subsequent behavior also needs to be considered. An example of possible degradation is that index bloat would no longer be guaranteed to be cleaned up over a series of repeated truncations. (You might argue that if the table is small then the indexes couldn't be very bloated, but I don't think that holds up over a long series.) IOW, I think it's fine as-is. I'd certainly wish to see many more than one complainant before we expend effort in this area. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
