From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | John Taylor <postgres(at)jtresponse(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "PgSQL Novice" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimising inside transactions |
Date: | 2002-06-12 18:14:13 |
Message-ID: | fl3fgu0b76dq1lje2knpvi155vgmmteef7@4ax.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc pgsql-novice |
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:07:26 +0100, John Taylor
<postgres(at)jtresponse(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
>
>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 ?
>
ISTM "optimising" is not the right word, it doesn't even try to
execute them.
fred=# BEGIN;
BEGIN
fred=# INSERT INTO a VALUES (1, 'x');
INSERT 174658 1
fred=# blabla;
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "blabla"
fred=# INSERT INTO a VALUES (2, 'y');
NOTICE: current transaction is aborted, queries ignored until end of
transaction block
*ABORT STATE*
fred=# ROLLBACK;
ROLLBACK
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-12 18:23:16 | Re: Number of attributes in HeapTupleHeader |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-12 18:11:53 | Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Kirby | 2002-06-12 23:36:31 | lo_import |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-12 16:12:50 | Shouldn't "aborted transaction" be an ERROR? (was Re: [NOVICE] Optimising inside transactions) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew McMillan | 2002-06-13 12:46:05 | Re: How efficient are Views |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-12 16:12:50 | Shouldn't "aborted transaction" be an ERROR? (was Re: [NOVICE] Optimising inside transactions) |