Re: Re: inserting, index and no index - speed

From: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>
To: Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: inserting, index and no index - speed
Date: 2001-06-11 02:53:38
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.10.10106102252310.17529-100000@spider.pilosoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 10 Jun 2001, Vivek Khera wrote:

> >>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> TL> Everything is always a transaction in Postgres. If you don't say
> TL> begin/end, then there's an implicit begin and end around each individual
> TL> query. So your first set of tests were paying transaction commit
> TL> overhead for each insert.
>
> This doesn't seem to hold exactly for INSERTs involving sequences as
> default values. Even if the insert fails for some other constraint,
> the sequence is incremented.
No, that's exactly how it is supposed to work, to guarantee that you will
never get same value from two separate calls to nextval.

-alex

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vivek Khera 2001-06-11 03:27:23 Re: Re: inserting, index and no index - speed
Previous Message Alex Pilosov 2001-06-11 02:34:52 Re: Getting interval in seconds?