From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: performance of insert/delete/update |
Date: | 2002-11-26 01:41:42 |
Message-ID: | 200211251741.42394.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Scott,
> No offense meant, really. It's just that you seemed to really doubt that
> putting things into one transaction helped, and putting things into one
> big transaction if like the very first postgresql lesson a lot of
> newcomers learn. :-)
Not so odd, if you think about it. After all, this approach is only useful
for a series of small update/insert statements on a single connection.
Thinking about it, I frankly never do this except as part of a stored
procedure ... which, in Postgres, is automatically a transaction.
I'm lucky enough that my data loads have all been adaptable to COPY
statements, which bypasses this issue completely.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Clift | 2002-11-26 02:06:42 | Re: Postgres Security Expert??? |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2002-11-26 01:41:03 | Re: performance of insert/delete/update |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2002-11-26 01:52:33 | Re: performance of insert/delete/update |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2002-11-26 01:41:03 | Re: performance of insert/delete/update |