From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> |
Cc: | Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>, "pgsql-jdbc (at) postgresql (dot) org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: jdbc batch performance problem |
Date: | 2003-07-20 22:55:51 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0307201847560.4405-100000@leary.csoft.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
> If as you say it do not exist any diference I think it will be
> possible to improve executeBatch.
> For example for it's implementation to use the pg copy command.
> Exist at the moment any work for improving the batch commands?
>
To use COPY instead of insert during executeBatch would require some
complicated parsing of the statement to determine if it was really a
simple insert that could be translated into COPY. If your statement had a
function call or a subselect it could not use COPY. Also I'm not sure
what translating an INSERT into a COPY would do if you we're inserting
into a table that had rules on it.
There was a patch around that provided an API to use COPY explicitly which
might suit your needs.
Kris Jurka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2003-07-21 00:02:41 | Re: Prepared Statements |
Previous Message | Dima Tkach | 2003-07-20 16:39:45 | Re: Prepared Statements |