I'm looking for a strategy to purge large amounts of logically deleted data from a MySQL database. The deleted records are in a relatively small table, but are referred to with many ON DELETE CASACDE records on several referring tables, which makes the deletion process very slow and time consuming, during which time some of the smaller but more frequently accessed tables are, apparently, locked (these are InnoDB tables).

Since these purges happen on regular intervals on a high-load database, I'm trying to figure out the best strategy to purge this data with minimal impact on other processes, i.e. with minimal locking of parent tables.

To give an example, I have a table structure similar to this:

+------------+    +------------+    +------------+    +-------------+
| accounts   |    | users      |    | messages   |    | attachments |
+------------+    +------------+    +------------+    +-------------+
| id         |    | id         |    | id         |    | id          |
| name       |    | account_id |    | user_id    |    | message_id  |
| is_deleted |    | name       |    +------------+    +-------------+
+------------+    +------------+

users.account_id REFERENCES accounts.id ON DELETE CASCADE
messages.user_id REFERENCES users.id ON DELETE CASCADE
attachments.message_id REFERENCES messages.id ON DELETE CASCADE

Assuming there are dozens of users per account, thousands of messages per user and potentially dozens attachments and other related data (e.g. tags, metadata etc.) per message - deleting an account will result in tens or hundreds of thousands of records to delete spanning multiple tables.

What would be a good strategy to take when purging data in such a case?

  • Do you need/want deleting at all? It sure depends on what are the requirements but marking users etc as "deactivated" instead of deleting is often better as you keep your data and can "reactivate" some again if needed.
    – jkavalik
    Aug 28, 2015 at 7:00
  • @jkavalik while it is possible that at some point it will make sense to keep logically deleted users, for now I'm looking for a strategy to actually delete the marked records after a while
    – shevron
    Aug 28, 2015 at 10:06

2 Answers 2


You may do deletes in batches from some script:

1) mark account for deletion (seems you are doing it right now)

2) in script - select one user for some marked account and delete it - as you expect many users per account, this will delete only small portion of all messages and attachments so should be fast enough

3) repeat 2 with remaining users of a given account, one small batch at a time, other processes can get work done between the locks

4) delete the account - no users so fast

If deleting one user can still take too long, you can go one level down and delete batches of say 1000 messages and then delete the account with all users, now without messages so fast again.

The problem is that you lose ACID properties as it all runs in multiple transactions -> you cannot rollback after committing first delete and other queries running in between will see partial data of users (incomplete lists of messages/users depending on the granularity of your deletes). But only you can say if it is a real problem for you or if is_deleted=1 means that account is not used anywhere anymore so it is safe.

  • In this use case losing ACID properties is fine - since the account is already marked as logically deleted, this is just a cleanup procedure and the state of its related data is irrelevant, as long as eventually it gets cleaned up.
    – shevron
    Aug 29, 2015 at 5:44

I had the same issue. Deleting in batches helps, but still tends to lock up my Percona cluster because of the delay in replicating the delete to other nodes.

In my case, most of the cascaded deletes did not exist in practice - there could in theory be records in those tables, but in practice there weren't for most of the tables. So what I did was query the schema to find which tables the cascade could affect, then for each item to delete:

  • Query the affected tables to find if there were any affected records; if so, delete them.
  • Delete the main record.

This meant that the actual locking was very much reduced. In my case this enabled me to delete about an order of magnitude faster.

This approach is not atomic, but won't leave the tables in a bad state if there's a crash.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.