Rod Taylor wrote: > > INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (1), (2); > > > > would be executed in a similar fashion to: > > > > INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (1); > > INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (2); > > > > Does this sound reasonable?
Sounds good to me. > I debated doing the above too. In fact, I had a partial > implementation at one point. > > However, the resulting purpose of allowing such a construct is to > enable the speeds copy achieves with the variation that is found in an > insert. ... I thought the purpose of the item was merely for compatibility with other databases that support this syntax. I don't think it will ever match COPY performance, and I don't think stuffing a huge INSERT into the database rather than COPY rows will ever be a preferred method. I only see VALUES used by INSERT so if you can think of a clean way to make that work as multiple INSERTs, I think it would be a good idea. Hopefully, it will be one localized change, and we can remove it if we ever want to support VALUES in more complex situations, as Tom mentioned. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
