From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Oren Mazor <oren(dot)mazor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: multiple inserts |
Date: | 2005-06-17 19:55:24 |
Message-ID: | 20050617195524.GC9670@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:31:12 -0400,
Oren Mazor <oren(dot)mazor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> hm. well. I'm looking at a data set that can potentially get a few
> thousand big. So I'll stick with the COPY command.
>
> the trick is that I'm inserting a 1000 row 20 column table. This gets
> super slow, as you can imagine, so I'm looking at creating a two tables, a
> 1000 row table with a single column (my unique identifiers) and a 20
> column table with a single row (the default values) and then UNIONing them.
>
> would doing a COPY be a better idea?
If you do the inserts in one transaction this should be reasonably fast.
If a program is doing the inserts more speed can be gained by using prepare.
However, copy is a better way to go if you aren't transforming or checking
the data as it is being inserted.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vishal Kashyap @ [SaiHertz] | 2005-06-18 08:40:17 | |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-06-17 19:34:06 | Re: Trigger and Trigger function, Part 3 - success! |