From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Copy From & Insert UNLESS |
Date: | 2006-02-06 22:17:06 |
Message-ID: | 20060206125621.X65955@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Are you sure that a new type of constraint is the way to go for this?
> It doesn't solve our issues in the data warehousing space. The spec we
> started with for "Error-tolerant COPY" is:
>
> 1) It must be able to handle parsing errors (i.e. bad char set);
> 2) It must be able to handle constraint violations;
> 3) It must output all row errors to a log or "errors" table which makes
> it possible to determine which input row failed and why;
> 4) It must not slow significantly (like, not more than 15%) the speed of
> bulk loading.
>
> On that basis, Alon started working on a low-level error trapper for
> COPY. It seems like your idea, which would involve a second constraint
> check, would achieve neigher #1 nor #4.
I think in his system it wouldn't check the constraints twice, it'd just
potentially check them at a different time than the normal constraint
timing, so I think it'd cover #4. I'd wonder if there'd be any possibility
of having violations get unnoticed in that case, but I'm not coming up
with an obvious way that could happen.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2006-02-06 22:20:10 | Re: Copy From & Insert UNLESS |
Previous Message | Alon Goldshuv | 2006-02-06 22:08:38 | Re: Copy From & Insert UNLESS |