× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



And lest ye think I'm not being as impartial as possible here, I did some
research on the block INSERT technique, and can report that it greatly
increases performance.  By adding a blocking factor of 10, I reduced the SQL
processing time from 40 seconds to 6 seconds for inserting 100,000 records.
Implementing this technique involves using a multiple occurence data
structure.  The problem, of course, is that you have to have blocks of
records to insert, and normal transaction processing doesn't work that way,
but in those cases where it's appropriate, it certainly makes SQL process
better.

Unfortunately, I didn't come across an analogous operation for updates, so
the FETCH/UPDATE numbers still stand.

Joe


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Pluta
> 100,000 WRITE operations took 7 seconds
> 100,000 SQL INSERT INTO ... VALUES operations took 40 seconds



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.