Re: speed concerns with executemany()

From: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
Cc: mike bayer <mike_mp(at)zzzcomputing(dot)com>, "psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org" <psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: speed concerns with executemany()
Date: 2016-12-24 01:09:34
Message-ID: CA+mi_8bMRz5GLXM2=N0dsdrquBthn5He2LgAqor-dWvGS6mqAg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: psycopg

On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Adrian Klaver
<adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:

> I have to go with Christophe's explanation. They are seeing the effects of
> 200 separate transactions, though like he stated later this more an
> assumption then something I have tested.

My wild wild wild assumption is that they have a trigger on the table
that gets triggered 200 times instead of one.

The only thing I am sure of is that psycopg doesn't use any BEGIN
specifically in executemany.

-- Daniele

In response to

Responses

Browse psycopg by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2016-12-24 01:23:21 Re: speed concerns with executemany()
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2016-12-24 01:05:09 Re: speed concerns with executemany()