Christopher Browne wrote:
>In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, bruno@wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) transmitted:
>
>
>>On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 15:32:05 +0530,
>> Rahul_Iyer <rahul_iyer@persistent.co.in> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>hi, im currently working on a project that requires batch
>>>operations - eg. Batch insert/update etc. The database im using is
>>>PostgreSQL. However, i cannot find any documentation for batch
>>>opeartions on PostgreSQL. Does anyone know how to do this, or if it
>>>is possible?
>>>
>>>
>>Usually you just use psql to run a script with the commands in it.
>>
>>
>
>Ah, but I rather think he's looking for some place to queue up sets of
>operations inside the database, or inside some sort of "middleware"
>application.
>
>In SAP's R/3 application, automated batch processes are set up so that
>the updates that they are doing are stored "serialized" so that you
>can try and possibly retry them.
>
>It's almost exactly analagous to the notion of taking the set of URLs
>and FORM POSTs involved in navigating through a web application and
>storing them somewhere so that you could rerun data entry.
>
>To do things that way requires having quite a lot of application
>infrastructure; the right answer probably is, if the input is a set of
>SQL statements, to stick them in a file, and load the file.
>
>If this is the sort of thing someone needed to do and redo, and they
>had a lot of these files, it might make sense to make up a naming
>convention for files in a directory, perhaps parallelling Maildir, and
>have a daemon that looks there and processes whatever gets "spooled."
>
>If you have a lot of reporting processes to throw at a "reports
>server," this approach may make a lot of sense. If the DB server is a
>4 CPU box, then you surely don't want to flood it by running 28
>reports at once. Spooling the requests allows them to be processed
>two or three or four at a time, and the other 25 will wait until the
>predecessors are complete.
>
>
This sounds like that "Scheduled Jobs" task thread that was discussed
May13th. The essence was that it would be nice to have, but nobody seems
to work on this at the moment.
Regards,
Andreas