Re: multiple inserts
От | Oren Mazor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: multiple inserts |
Дата | |
Msg-id | op.ssiqmarev14azh@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: multiple inserts (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: multiple inserts
Re: multiple inserts |
Список | pgsql-novice |
hm. well. I'm looking at a data set that can potentially get a few thousand big. So I'll stick with the COPY command. the trick is that I'm inserting a 1000 row 20 column table. This gets super slow, as you can imagine, so I'm looking at creating a two tables, a 1000 row table with a single column (my unique identifiers) and a 20 column table with a single row (the default values) and then UNIONing them. would doing a COPY be a better idea? On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:25:28 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Oren Mazor" <oren.mazor@gmail.com> writes: >> I'm wondering if it is at all possible to do a mass insert into a table >> using only a single query? >> Something along the lines of: >> insert into mytable values (val1), (val2), (val3) > > We should have that (it's in the SQL spec) but no one's gotten around to > it. You could fake it with > > insert into mytable > select val1 > union all > select val2 > union all > ... > > But if you are thinking of really large amounts of data (like more than > a few dozen rows), you really want to use COPY instead. Neither the > union approach nor the still-unwritten multi-insert would be likely to > be pleasant to use for thousands/millions of rows. > > regards, tom lane -- Nanny Ogg looked under her bed in case there was a man there. Well, you never knew your luck. (Lords and Ladies - Terry Pratchett)
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: