I think you can also increase the query performance by creating indexes?
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 11:36, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 2020, at 4:47 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> >
> > Karthik Shivashankar schrieb am 14.12.2020 um 12:38:
> >> I have a postgres(v9.5) table named customer holding 1 billion rows.
> >> It is not partitioned but it has an index against the primary key
> >> (integer). I need to keep a very few records (say, about 10k rows)
> >> and remove everything else.
> >>
> >> /insert into customer_backup select * from customer where customer_id
> in (,,..); /
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If I go for something like above I'm afraid the insert-select may take
> a very long time as when I ran
> >>
> >> /select count(*) from customer;/
> >>
> >> it is taking about 45 minutes to return the count.
> >
> > Well, you need to compare the time with the same condition you use in
> your
> > CREATE TABLE .. AS SELECT statement,
> >
> > e.g.:
> >
> > select count(*)
> > from customer
> > where id in ();
> >
> > Or:
> >
> > explain (analyze)
> > select *
> > from customer
> > where id in ();
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Thomas
> >
> As for the actually copy of the specific records, I would ‘where exists’
> (even possibly with a temp table of ids) rather than in(id1..id1)
>
> >
>
>
>
>
