Stephan,
REPLACE is logically handled as a DELETE + INSERT, but
internally it is often handled as an UPDATE. Probably
REPLACE is faster than UPDATE / INSERT, because you
save some communications overhead between the client
and the server.
Regards,
Heikki
>On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:00:59AM +02
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 12:50:39PM +0200, Stephan wrote:
>
> >> 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
Hi Mysql,
E-Mail vom Montag, 3. September 2001, 12:14:42:
Hi Jeremy,
E-Mail vom Montag, 3. September 2001, 11:52:55:
>> 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
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 ins
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
30
