From: | Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alessandro Gagliardi <alessandro(at)path(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Indexes and Primary Keys on Rapidly Growing Tables |
Date: | 2012-02-21 23:53:01 |
Message-ID: | CAEV0TzCgEe59_VbNcZH2WixcNP+Eo+aTxeEZ5LM4o8SOabNK7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alessandro Gagliardi
<alessandro(at)path(dot)com>wrote:
> I was thinking about that (as per your presentation last week) but my
> problem is that when I'm building up a series of inserts, if one of them
> fails (very likely in this case due to a unique_violation) I have to
> rollback the entire commit. I asked about this in the novice<http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/execute-many-for-each-commit-td5494218.html>forum and was advised to use
> SAVEPOINTs. That seems a little clunky to me but may be the best way.
> Would it be realistic to expect this to increase performance by ten-fold?
>
>
if you insert into a different table before doing a bulk insert later, you
can de-dupe before doing the insertion, eliminating the issue entirely.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alessandro Gagliardi | 2012-02-22 00:11:04 | Re: Indexes and Primary Keys on Rapidly Growing Tables |
Previous Message | Alessandro Gagliardi | 2012-02-21 17:59:40 | Re: Indexes and Primary Keys on Rapidly Growing Tables |