Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: performance of insert/delete/update

From: Tim Gardner <tgardner(at)codeHorse(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Date: 2002-11-25 23:41:53
Message-ID: p05111b0dba0864e04ba2@[192.168.1.4] (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
>The funny thing it, they've often avoided transactions because they
>figured they'd be slower than just inserting the rows, and you kinda have
>to make them sit down first before you show them the performance increase
>from putting all those inserts into a single transaction.
>
>No offense meant, really.  It's just that you seemed to really doubt that
>putting things into one transaction helped, and putting things into one
>big transaction if like the very first postgresql lesson a lot of
>newcomers learn. :-)

Scott,

I'm new to postgresql, and as you suggested, this is 
counter-intuitive to me.  I would have thought that having to store 
all the inserts to be able to roll them back would take longer.  Is 
my thinking wrong or not relevant?  Why is this not the case?

Thanks,
Tim

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2002-11-26 00:20:03
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous:From: scott.marloweDate: 2002-11-25 22:59:16
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2002-11-26 00:20:03
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-11-25 23:21:46
Subject: Re: Problem with initdb -W

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group