Re: tracking scripts...

From: Joey Quinn <bjquinniii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rémi Cura <remi(dot)cura(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "John R Pierce *EXTERN*" <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tracking scripts...
Date: 2013-11-27 14:24:55
Message-ID: CAG5XHY=RFBYCsLw_4M1p3UVFqQrQBQYUXVJR9vr8NmmnUjddhg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

A little reluctant, yes, but not 100%. I'm new to Postgres, but if I end up
using it enough, then I will also end up learning some command line stuff.
If it continues to look like a good/robust solution for this particular
project (think ERIPP <http://www.eripp.com> plus
Shodan<http://www.shodanhq.com/> and
whatever else I can come up with) then I'll be here awhile...

Joey

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Rémi Cura <remi(dot)cura(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I'm not an expert,
> I would think if you can spare using only one transaction , it would be
> way way faster to do it !
>
> the system simply could skip keeping log to be ready to roll back for a 1
> billion row update !
>
> Of course it would be preferable to use psql to execute statement by
> statement as separate transactions , and do it with X several parallel psql
> (splitting the big text file into X parts), yet Joey seemed reluctant to
> use console =)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Rémi-C
>
>
> 2013/11/27 Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
>
>> John R Pierce wrote:
>> > On 11/26/2013 9:24 AM, Joey Quinn wrote:
>> >> When I ran that command (select * from pg_stat_activity"), it returned
>> >> the first six lines of the scripts. I'm fairly sure it has gotten a
>> >> bit beyond that (been running over 24 hours now, and the size has
>> >> increased about 300 GB). Am I missing something for it to tell me what
>> >> the last line processed was?
>> >
>> > that means your GUI lobbed the entire file at postgres in a single
>> > PQexec call, so its all being executed as a single statement.
>> >
>> > psql -f "filename.sql" dbname would have processed the queries one at
>> > a time.
>>
>> Yes, but that would slow down processing considerably, which would
>> not help in this case.
>>
>> I'd opt for
>> psql -1 -f "filename.sql" dbname
>> so it all runs in a single transaction.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Laurenz Albe
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joey Quinn 2013-11-27 14:35:31 Re: tracking scripts...
Previous Message Rémi Cura 2013-11-27 14:23:53 Re: tracking scripts...