On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:00:59AM +0200, Stephan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> my situation:
>
> I generate 300 rows at a time - they should be stored in the a mysql
> table.
>
> 99 % of the keys of these rows already exist in the table, so these
> rows need an update. The remaining 1 % have to be inserted in the
> table.
>
> I was wondering if it is a good idea to to this with 300 UPDATE
> statements and if one of them fails do an INSERT. Or if it's
> recommendable to use a single REPLACE statement.
>
> My problem with the REPLACE is that the documentation says that a
> REPLACE always does an DELETE and then an INSERT. In my case a lot
> of rows (99%) would be deleted in the index that only need an
> update. Is it a good idea to do that much index manipulations that
> aren't necessary?
Hmm. Are you asking for performance reasons or just because one is
easier to code than the other?
It shouldn't be hard to benchmark both options. I'd be curious to
hear what you find.
Jeremy
--
Jeremy D. Zawodny, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance
Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936
MySQL 3.23.41-max: up 3 days, processed 33,485,487 queries (110/sec. avg)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
