| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | mike bayer <mike_mp(at)zzzcomputing(dot)com>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, "psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org" <psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |
| Date: | 2017-01-02 15:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | 3f0fb434-4bdb-f778-ddb4-14636454697a@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
On 01/02/2017 05:05 AM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Same code across network, client in Bellingham WA, server in Fremont CA:
>>
>> Without autocommit:
>>
>> In [51]: %timeit -n 10 cur.executemany(sql, l)
>> 10 loops, best of 3: 8.22 s per loop
>>
>>
>> With autocommit:
>>
>> In [56]: %timeit -n 10 cur.executemany(sql, l)
>> 10 loops, best of 3: 8.38 s per loop
>
> Adrian, have you got a benchmark "classic vs. joined" on remote
> network? Thank you.
Knew I was forgetting something, thanks for the reminder. Will set that
up and report back.
>
> -- Daniele
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-01-02 15:35:46 | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-01-02 15:16:32 | Re: Solving the SQL composition problem |