Re: Indexes and Primary Keys on Rapidly Growing Tables
От | Alessandro Gagliardi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Indexes and Primary Keys on Rapidly Growing Tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAB3BBK+oTf_25BpHy-dPrYH5Gh0k=sJN=bnqBqh0HdYoTXqSA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Indexes and Primary Keys on Rapidly Growing Tables (Samuel Gendler <sgendler@ideasculptor.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
True. I implemented the SAVEPOINTs solution across the board. We'll see what kind of difference it makes. If it's fast enough, I may be able to do without that.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Samuel Gendler <sgendler@ideasculptor.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alessandro Gagliardi <alessandro@path.com> wrote:I was thinking about that (as per your presentation last week) but my problem is that when I'm building up a series of inserts, if one of them fails (very likely in this case due to a unique_violation) I have to rollback the entire commit. I asked about this in the novice forum and was advised to use SAVEPOINTs. That seems a little clunky to me but may be the best way. Would it be realistic to expect this to increase performance by ten-fold?if you insert into a different table before doing a bulk insert later, you can de-dupe before doing the insertion, eliminating the issue entirely.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: