> Counterintuitively, large DELETEs add work to the database.

There is nothing counterintuitive about this. It takes just as much work to delete a row as it takes to insert a row. Why wouldn't it? Obviously you have to do almost all the same operations: write a log, write the deletion, update indices, replicate it, etc.

And yes, it's a well-known trick for all major relational databases (not just Postgres) that if you want to delete 90% of rows from a large table, it's much faster to just copy the rows you want to keep to a new table, run DROP TABLE on the old table, and rename the new table to the old table. Since DROP TABLE is ~instantaneous, mainly involving table-level metadata.

DELETE scales just fine, in the sense that if you are constantly inserting and deleting individual rows, DELETE scales the same as INSERT.

Basic database functionality is designed around the assumption of lots of small transactions. Whenever you have to do something involving millions of rows at once, you generally need to investigate solutions that work well in "bulk". E.g. loading rows directly from a file rather than with SQL, adding indices only after the data has been loaded rather than before, disabling foreign key checks on large operations (if you know by design that the keys are valid)... and yes, taking advantage of DROP TABLE instead of DELETE. This doesn't mean small transactions aren't scalable, it just means bulk operations are qualitatively different and benefit from their own solutions. And DELETE is no different from INSERT in this regard.

I sincerely hope that Planetscale’s efforts succeed long-term to shift devs’ understanding and acceptance of RDBMS operations. Their blog posts and docs are generally quite good. IME, devs (and even ops-ish teams) simply do not care about all of this, and will create elaborate bespoke tooling to run DELETEs in bulk, because they either don’t understand the capabilities of the database, or don’t want to deal with the [minor] increased complexity that a partitioned schema brings, and will happily pay the extra cost / latency for deletions.

DELETE with well-tuned autovacuum works pretty well. Have seen it work at TBs scale with no hicuups. If DELETEs are large, we used to recommend customers to follow that with a manual VACUUM for table to reclaim space right away for future rows.

DROP TABLE can be risky, it requires an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE LOCK and if its waiting, it blocks all other statements following it, because of how lock queues work in Postgres. And you cannot keep doing high concurrent DROP TABLEs to run your large scale CRUD app.

Don't get me wrong, I've definitely done it before, but it's in the same bucket as VACUUM for me... high impact interventions used to fix a mistake I made, not "course of business" actions.

Similarly, you often have to remind devs that in many databases an UPDATE is just an INSERT + DELETE, with all of the scaling issues implied.

The better approach is either to change your storage engine (e.g. OrioleDB is working on adding the undo log to Pg), or to shard which distributes the vacuum load across multiple servers.

https://github.com/pgpartman/pg_partman/blob/development/doc...

- We wrote a cronjob to periodically DELETE for a retention policy on a table we'd just created. Most senior person on the team reviewed it, looked fine.

- Unusually for us, we prioritize QA'ing a different feature for release, delaying the release of this cronjob and a bunch of other code.

- During that delay, the new table accumulated many times more rows to be deleted than we'd expected during review.

- Release happens. All looks well since the initial delete wasn't a migration and cronjob hasn't run yet; engineer doing the release signs off.

- Cronjob runs, deleting hundreds of millions of rows quickly.

- Next day, replica lag's high and MySQL's transaction history is very high. MySQL keeps transaction history around until purge threads have visited all the affected pages on disk.

- The bad cluster conditions last for days and lead to other problems.

This omits detail and the 'noise' of everything else we were watching. But it gets across how the code and MySQL behaved.

Like most exciting events, it led to multiple changes to avoid a repeat. For retention policies, our new approach was one at the end of PlanetScale's post, to partition and drop old partitions. Transitioning to this from a huge unpartitioned table can be fun!

If a table is append-only and already huge, with lots of rows already past the retention threshold, you might only copy the rows to be kept to the new partitioned table: copy what you can, lock tables, do a last catch-up copy and swap tables. (Roughly the blog's 'performant one-off delete'.)

If the table's merely kind of big, gh-ost or such could allow you to ALTER without causing lag, locking, etc.

At a scale below that, you could run a slow incremental 'nibble' delete while watching server stats, and a step below that, plain ALTERs or DELETEs are fine.

Using partitioning has fun bits, too. In MySQL, the partition key has to be part of any unique index, understandably. But you have to keep that in mind when you're using INSERT..ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE and relying on uniqueness to trigger the update. Things stay interesting!

I hear Vitess shops like PlanetScale usually don't run multi-terabyte myqsld instances in the first place: even when physical nodes are big, they run many smaller mysqlds on them. That wouldn't make all this fully irrelevant--huge deletes would still sometimes be worse than copy-swap-drop--but it does seem real handy for taming issues that tend to worsen with mysqld size, like replication lag. All to say, little bit jelly of their setup over there!