Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FYI: When this multi-row-insert patch is combined with today's CVS > OP_Real and OP_Int64 fix for Tickets #2733 and #2731 (Check-in [4507]), > the multi-row ASCII INSERT statements are as much as 25% faster than > the equivalent number of traditional individual ASCII INSERT statements > within a transaction. > > i.e., > > -- this is 25% faster... > INSERT INTO BIGTABLE VALUES > (-334712687065.09, -334712687065.12, -334712687065.13), > (-334712687065.09, -334712687065.12, -334712687065.13), > ... 9996 similar rows ... > (-334712687065.09, -334712687065.12, -334712687065.13), > (-334712687065.09, -334712687065.12, -334712687065.13); > > -- ...than this > BEGIN > INSERT INTO BIGTABLE VALUES(-334712687065.09, -334712687065.12, > -334712687065.13); > INSERT INTO BIGTABLE VALUES(-334712687065.09, -334712687065.12, > -334712687065.13); > ... 9996 similar rows ... > INSERT INTO BIGTABLE VALUES(-334712687065.09, -334712687065.12, > -334712687065.13); > INSERT INTO BIGTABLE VALUES(-334712687065.09, -334712687065.12, > -334712687065.13); > COMMIT; >
I wonder how the performance of the above compares to this: BEGIN; INSERT INTO BIGTABLE VALUES(?,?,?); -- bind values as appropriate -- bind new values and rerun the same prepared statement 9999 more -- times. END; I'm guessing that the latter is at least twice as fast as either of the first two. -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
