| From: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | mike bayer <mike_mp(at)zzzcomputing(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, Dorian Hoxha <dorian(dot)hoxha(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, "psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org" <psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |
| Date: | 2017-01-02 13:03:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+mi_8Z=ZtA+2e-45fW40KxyQC6QTQVXTWPUwaVWGhswpXdYEA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:12 PM, mike bayer <mike_mp(at)zzzcomputing(dot)com> wrote:
>
> you'd need to be careful with that as a series of multiple parameter sets
> may have dependencies on each other, not to mention people might find it
> surprising that sequences / defaults / SERIAL etc. aren't firing off in the
> order in which parameter sets were given.
I don't expect the parameters to be interpreted in a different way by
the server: I think the order would be maintained.
-- Daniele
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2017-01-02 13:05:33 | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |
| Previous Message | Oleksandr Shulgin | 2017-01-02 10:04:06 | Re: Solving the SQL composition problem |