| From: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why is unique constraint needed for upsert? (treat atomicity as optional) |
| Date: | 2014-07-23 21:21:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1406150492812-5812628.post@n5.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
seamusabshere wrote
>> At READ COMMITTED isolation level, you should always get an atomic insert
>> or update [1]
>
> I just think there are a lot of non-concurrent bulk loading and
> processing workflows that could benefit from the performance advantages
> of upsert (one trip to database).
Bulk load raw data into UNLOGGED staging table
LOCK production table
UPDATE matched records
INSERT unmatched records
UNLOCK production table
TRUNCATE staging table
This seems like it would be sufficient for "non-concurrent bulk loading"...
David J.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Why-is-unique-constraint-needed-for-upsert-tp5812552p5812628.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anil Menon | 2014-07-23 21:34:50 | Re: Referencing serial col's sequence for insert |
| Previous Message | Seamus Abshere | 2014-07-23 21:15:32 | Re: Why is unique constraint needed for upsert? (treat atomicity as optional) |