Hi,
> I did some tests earlier where I inserted 100,000 rows into a > table (table definition below). First, I did it without using > transactions and it took 243 seconds approximately. Then, I > did the same test using transactions, and it took 28 seconds. > > I am using MySQL v4. Here is the table definition: > > CREATE TABLE users ( > id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT, > num1 FLOAT(9,2) NOT NULL DEFAULT 0.0, > num2 FLOAT(9,2) NOT NULL DEFAULT 0.0, > ) TYPE=InnoDB; > > I guess my question is, how can this be? I was lead to believe that > using transactions would slow things down but the opposite appears > to be happening. Can anyone offer an explanation as to why it took > so much longer to do the inserts when not using transactions ? Well, "not using transactions" might be an auto-started and committed transaction for each insert: 100.000 transactions instead of 1 (started by you). Either way, Heiko probably will comment as well :-) With regards, Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL Server. Upscene Productions http://www.upscene.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
