In message <ecdbf6b3-3f99-4b59-b7f8-85bd22f97...@w9g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Oct 13, 8:32 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> > wrote: > >> In message >> <d2451907-c0d2-4571-b3e1-1e4d4f66a...@a7g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Steve >> Howell wrote: >> >>> Bulk-load strategies usually solve one or more of these problems: >> >>> network latency >> >> That’s not an issue. This is a bulk operation, after all. >> >>> index maintenance during the upload >> >> There are usually options to temporarily turn this off. >> >>> parsing of the SQL >> >> Not usually a problem, as far as I can tell. >> >>> reallocating storage >> >> You mean for thr SQL? Again, not usually a problem, as far as I can tell. > > If you are avoiding network latency and turning off indexes, then you > are using some kind of a bulk-load strategy. I thought we were talking about “load data” versus using simple variants of “insert”. At least, that’s what I was talking about. What were you talking about? > If you are not concerned about parsing costs or storage churn ... What is this “storage churn” thing, and why are you raising it now? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
