| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Multiple insert performance trick or performance misunderstanding? |
| Date: | 2005-09-24 21:15:41 |
| Message-ID: | 23702.1127596541@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> Is it expected that I'd be better off sending big
> concatenated strings like
> "insert into tbl (c1,c2) values (v1,v2);insert into tbl (c1,c2) values (v3,v4);..."
> instead of sending them one at a time?
It's certainly possible, if the network round trip from client to server
is slow. I do not think offhand that there is any material advantage
for the processing within the server (assuming you've wrapped the whole
thing into one transaction in both cases); if anything, the
concatenated-statement case is probably a bit worse inside the server
because it will transiently eat more memory. But network latency or
client-side per-command overhead could well cause the results you see.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Ben-Nes | 2005-09-25 10:17:27 | Re: Advice on RAID card |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2005-09-24 20:51:16 | Multiple insert performance trick or performance misunderstanding? |