| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, mike bayer <mike_mp(at)zzzcomputing(dot)com>, "psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org" <psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |
| Date: | 2016-12-24 02:55:40 |
| Message-ID: | f5da7054-a8c8-05da-3ced-6913c26b3e17@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
On 12/23/2016 05:37 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
>> On Dec 23, 2016, at 17:23, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yet the data was available immediately in another session without a explicit COMMIT, so how is psycopg2 committing the INSERTs?
>
> autocommit = True means psycopg2 doesn't issue an initial BEGIN, so each INSERT commits when done (just like a top-level psql session)... thus "autocommit."
Alright that I get. Still the practical outcome is each INSERT is being
done in a transaction (an implicit one) so the transaction overhead
comes into play. Or am I missing something?
>
> --
> -- Christophe Pettus
> xof(at)thebuild(dot)com
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2016-12-24 02:57:21 | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |
| Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2016-12-24 01:37:28 | Re: speed concerns with executemany() |