On 8/13/19 6:34 AM, Souvik Bhattacherjee wrote:
> > If the selects are returning more then one row then you are already
> > doing bulk inserts. If they are returning single rows or you want to
> > batch them then you need some sort of code to do that. Something
> > like(pseudo Python like code):
>
> > attr2_vals= [(10, 20, 30, 40), (50, 60, 70, 80)]
>
> > for val_batch in attr2_vals:
> BEGIN
> for id in val_batch:
> insert into tab2 (attr1, attr2) (select attr1, attr2
> from tab1 where attr2 = id)
> COMMIT
>
> For *EXP 1: inserts with multiple txn:*
> insert into tab2 (attr1, attr2) (select attr1, attr2 from tab1 where
> attr2 = 10);
> insert into tab2 (attr1, attr2) (select attr1, attr2 from tab1 where
> attr2 = 20);
>
> tab1 has ~6M rows and there are only two values for the attribute attr2 in
> tab1 which are evenly distributed. So, yes, I guess I'm already doing
> batching
> here.
>
> Also, I ran the following two statements to see if their performances
> are comparable.
> While STMT 1 always runs faster in my machine but their performances
> seem to differ
> by a couple of seconds at most.
>
> STMT 1: select attr1, attr2 into tab2 from tab1;
> STMT 2: insert into tab2 (select attr1, attr2 from tab1);
All I have left is:
select tab2 row_number () OVER (order by attr2, attr1 )AS id, attr1,
attr2 into tab2 from tab1;
That will not create a serial type in the id column though. You can
attach a sequence to that column. Something like:
1) create sequence tab2_id start <max id + 1> owned by tab2.id;
2) alter table tab2 alter COLUMN id set default nextval('tab2_id');
>
> However adding the serial id column as an ALTER TABLE statement actually
> takes more time
> than inserting the tuples, so the combined total time is more than
> double the time taken to insert
> the tuples into tab2 without serial id column.
>
> Best,
> -SB
>
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com