| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dorian Hoxha <dorian(dot)hoxha(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, mike bayer <mike_mp(at)zzzcomputing(dot)com>, "psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org" <psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |
| Date: | 2016-12-30 23:42:08 |
| Message-ID: | 12999244-2CDE-402C-BE3F-26C1426446E8@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
> On Dec 30, 2016, at 14:24, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The implementation of executemany as described by me a few days ago is
> available in this gist, not heavily tested:
>
> https://gist.github.com/dvarrazzo/4204cca5d1cd7c9c95bc814d81e6b83e
>
> I would like to know if anyone sees any shortcoming in this new implementation.
Seems fine to me! I wish there was a way of feeding the queries down the pipe asynchronously, rather than having to build a gigantic string, but that's probably more trouble than the feature is worth.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof(at)thebuild(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2016-12-30 23:55:32 | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |
| Previous Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2016-12-30 22:24:30 | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |