| From: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Terry Lee Tucker <terry(at)esc1(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance Question |
| Date: | 2006-06-14 20:21:33 |
| Message-ID: | 8764j31oaa.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Terry Lee Tucker <terry(at)esc1(dot)com> writes:
> Hello List:
>
> I've been told that an update to a record is equivalent to a delete
> and insert operation. We have a utility written in Perl that brings
> into sync certain elements of 50 thousand records on 8 structurally
> identical databases. We threw together the script and decided to
> just delete the record and re-insert it with the data that was
> brought into sync. Now the question: Is it just as fast to do it
> this way, or is there some hidden advantage to performing an update?
UPDATE will probably be somewhat faster because it's only one SQL
statement to parse, plan and execute.
-Doug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2006-06-14 20:24:27 | Re: Performance Question |
| Previous Message | Terry Lee Tucker | 2006-06-14 19:57:37 | Performance Question |