On Apr 19, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Tim Soderstrom > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but would a transaction not be what >> you're asking for? >> >> BEGIN; >> UPDATE ... ; >> UPDATE ... ; >> ... >> COMMIT; > > Eh, no. That'd still be 10000 update statements.
Yes, but the writes will occur in a single transaction when you COMMIT so it should be faster than doing isolated UPDATEs. Use a prepared statement if you want to get even more speed out of it (though I suspect any speed improvements may be sort of marginal, and that's assumption not bounded by any particular benchmarks I have done that show differences either way). > >> That is, if you wanted to have all those statements go through at the same >> time. I think if you wanted to improve speeds of updates, you may want to >> look at PBMS, the BLOB streaming stuff, which functions similar to >> HandlerSocket. I'm not sure if HandlerSocket can be built into Drizzle but, >> last I remember, PBMS is already there ready to go as a plugin. > > This isn't about blobs. How would PBMS help? It's a misnomer that PBMS handles just BLOBs. Like HandlerSocket, it can deal with pretty much any sort of data as far as I'm aware. Paul wrote a post about this: http://pbxt.blogspot.com/2010/12/handlersocket-why-did-out-version-did.html It's faster because you don't use the SQL optimizer, though I don't think you can do transactional updates with it. Still, if it's anything close to the speed of HandlerSocket, I would take a look at this since you're doing a bunch of key-value updates anyway (hence you don't need a SQL layer for those really). Tim _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
