| 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>, 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 13:05:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+mi_8bipP557+7cJyw_wkqP1paeAJr-oewzEsqR0SkfnzgHiQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
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.
-- Daniele
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-02 15:05:16 | Re: Solving the SQL composition problem |
| Previous Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2017-01-02 13:03:53 | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |