| From: | Eduardo Pérez Ureta <eperez(at)it(dot)uc3m(dot)es> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Duane Lee - EGOVX <DLee(at)mail(dot)maricopa(dot)gov>, 'Richard Huxton' <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE |
| Date: | 2004-06-18 20:46:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20040618204630.GA28564@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2004-06-18 20:15:11 UTC, Robert Treat wrote:
> IIRC the standard syntax is based on db2's horrendous merge on command,
> which was only added to the standard a couple months back.
Great! I didn't know that was standard.
I see that Oracle has it:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_tips_rittman_merge.htm
And db2 as you said:
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/db2/article.php/3322041
Could you explain why db2's merge command is horrendous?
Is it better the mysql command?
So will postgresql accept this command?
> IIRC the main downside to the select/update method is it introduces a
> race condition that can only be solved by locking the table; not an
> issue for most my$ql apps but would be frowned upon by most postgresql
> users.
Or course, if you don't need to do locking is a plus.
Eduardo
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | George Essig | 2004-06-18 21:07:12 | Re: putting binary data in a char field? |
| Previous Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2004-06-18 20:46:17 | Article on open-source databases |