| From: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Dutcher" <dave(at)tridecap(dot)com> |
| Cc: | lists(at)peufeu(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT OU UPDATE WITHOUT SELECT? |
| Date: | 2006-05-30 23:05:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20060530190508.aa47bafe.darcy@druid.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:54:00 -0500
"Dave Dutcher" <dave(at)tridecap(dot)com> wrote:
> What I do when I'm feeling lazy is execute a delete statement and then
> an insert. I only do it when I'm inserting/updating a very small number
> of rows, so I've never worried if its optimal for performance. Besides
> I've heard that an update in postgres is similar in performance to a
> delete/insert.
Well, they are basically the same operation in PostgreSQL. An update
adds a row to the end and marks the old one dead. A delete/insert
marks the row dead and adds one at the end. There may be some
optimization if the engine does both in one operation.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-31 00:38:17 | Re: Why the 8.1 plan is worst than 7.4? |
| Previous Message | Dave Dutcher | 2006-05-30 22:54:00 | Re: INSERT OU UPDATE WITHOUT SELECT? |