From: | "Henshall, Stuart - WCP" <SHenshall(at)westcountrypublications(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | 'John Taylor' <postgres(at)jtresponse(dot)co(dot)uk>, PgSQL Novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimising inside transactions |
Date: | 2002-06-12 15:24:40 |
Message-ID: | E2870D8CE1CCD311BAF50008C71EDE8E01F748E6@MAIL_EXCHANGE |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
When one statement has an error then you should see soemthing like the
following returned for the rest:
NOTICE: current transaction is aborted, queries ignored until end of
transaction block
*ABORT STATE*
Meaning none of the rest of the queries are executed.
hth,
- Stuart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Taylor [mailto:postgres(at)jtresponse(dot)co(dot)uk]
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm running a transaction with about 1600 INSERTs.
> Each INSERT involves a subselect.
>
> I've noticed that if one of the INSERTs fails, the remaining
> INSERTs run in about
> 1/2 the time expected.
>
> Is postgresql optimising the inserts, knowing that it will
> rollback at the end ?
>
> If not, why do the queries run faster after the failure ?
>
> Thanks
> JohnT
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-12 15:31:49 | Re: How efficient are Views |
Previous Message | Henshall, Stuart - WCP | 2002-06-12 15:21:15 | Re: How efficient are Views |