From: | John A Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dan Harris <fbsd(at)drivefaster(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: faster INSERT with possible pre-existing row? |
Date: | 2005-07-26 16:56:16 |
Message-ID: | 42E66B30.3030108@arbash-meinel.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Dan Harris wrote:
> I am working on a process that will be inserting tens of million rows
> and need this to be as quick as possible.
>
> The catch is that for each row I could potentially insert, I need to
> look and see if the relationship is already there to prevent multiple
> entries. Currently I am doing a SELECT before doing the INSERT, but I
> recognize the speed penalty in doing to operations. I wonder if there
> is some way I can say "insert this record, only if it doesn't exist
> already". To see if it exists, I would need to compare 3 fields
> instead of just enforcing a primary key.
>
> Even if this could be a small increase per record, even a few percent
> faster compounded over the whole load could be a significant reduction.
>
> Thanks for any ideas you might have.
>
> -Dan
>
You could insert all of your data into a temporary table, and then do:
INSERT INTO final_table SELECT * FROM temp_table WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT info FROM final_table WHERE id=id, path=path, y=y);
Or you could load it into the temporary table, and then:
DELETE FROM temp_table WHERE EXISTS (SELECT FROM final_table WHERE id...);
And then do a plain INSERT INTO.
I can't say what the specific performance increases would be, but
temp_table could certainly be an actual TEMP table (meaning it only
exists during the connection), and you could easily do a COPY into that
table to load it up quickly, without having to check any constraints.
Just a thought,
John
=:->
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeffrey W. Baker | 2005-07-26 17:42:19 | Re: Cheap RAM disk? |
Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2005-07-26 16:51:14 | Re: Cheap RAM disk? |