> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] 
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: Stephan Szabo
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] 7.4Beta
> 
> 
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> 
> >I don't know if there will be or not, but in one case it's a single 
> >table select with constant values, in the other it's 
> probably some kind 
> >of scan and subselect. I'm just not going to rule out the 
> possibility, 
> >so we should profile it in large transactions with say 100k single 
> >inserts and see.
> >  
> >
> You're talking about bulk operations, that should be handled 
> carefully 
> either. Usually loading all data into a temporary table, and making a 
> INSERT INTO xxx SELECT FROM tmptable should give a better 
> performance if 
> indices and constraints are concerned. PostgreSQL shouldn't be 
> considered to accept the most abusive ways of operation, but 
> it should 
> offer a reasonable set of tools enabling the jobs in a 
> convenient way. 
> Best situation available is if many small random transactions are 
> performed good, for TPC like loads, as well as bulk 
> operations. Nobody 
> should expect that a database will smootly convert a bunch of single 
> transactions into an optimized bulk one. That's the job of a 
> programmer.
> 
> >Yeah, the 5 above are pretty easy to show that it's safe, but other 
> >cases and referential action cases won't necessarily be so easy.
> >
> So it's the programmers responsibility to offer mass data to the 
> backend, not separate inserts that by chance might be handled in a 
> similar way. A RDBMS is not a clairvoyant.

Simplification of bulk operations can be very important for customers
(on the other hand).  For the CONNX tool set, we offer an escape on
INSERT/SELECT that performs the operation in bulk mode.

There are serious downsides to bulk operations also (such as not being
logged and therefore existing outside of a transaction).  Therefore,
they are useful really only in cases where a complete destruction and
repopulation is called for.  If anything goes haywire, you can't simply
roll it back.

Yet the speed savings can be enormous (orders of magnitude).

Compared to iteration over a set of prepared inserts, a bulk insert
(such as using Microsoft's BCP API or Oracles Direct Path loading) can
be 100 times faster.  If you are moving gigabytes of data and performing
a complete refresh, the method to use becomes obvious.

When we go outside of the language bounds, a curly braced escape
notation is used.  For instance, an insert/select might look like this:
INSERT INTO <destination_table> SELECT <column_list> FROM <source_table>
{fn commitcount 1000} {bulkmode}
The commit count says to use batches of 1000 rows and bulkmode says to
use the fastest possible insert method.

Imagine (for instance) that PostgreSQL can use an ODBC {or similar} data
source as a table.  Then, with a syntax such as the above (or SELECT
INTO etc.), you could very rapidly move data from one system into
another.

Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:08:00 -0700
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta
Dann Corbit wrote:

>Simplification of bulk operations can be very important for customers
>(on the other hand).  For the CONNX tool set, we offer an escape on
>INSERT/SELECT that performs the operation in bulk mode.
>
>There are serious downsides to bulk operations also (such as not being
>logged and therefore existing outside of a transaction).  Therefore,
>they are useful really only in cases where a complete destruction and
>repopulation is called for.  If anything goes haywire, you can't simply
>roll it back.
>
>Yet the speed savings can be enormous (orders of magnitude).
>
>Compared to iteration over a set of prepared inserts, a bulk insert
>(such as using Microsoft's BCP API or Oracles Direct Path loading) can
>be 100 times faster.  If you are moving gigabytes of data and performing
>a complete refresh, the method to use becomes obvious.
>
>When we go outside of the language bounds, a curly braced escape
>notation is used.  For instance, an insert/select might look like this:
>INSERT INTO <destination_table> SELECT <column_list> FROM <source_table>
>{fn commitcount 1000} {bulkmode}
>The commit count says to use batches of 1000 rows and bulkmode says to
>use the fastest possible insert method.
>
>Imagine (for instance) that PostgreSQL can use an ODBC {or similar} data
>source as a table.  Then, with a syntax such as the above (or SELECT
>INTO etc.), you could very rapidly move data from one system into
>another.
>  
>
When saying "bulk operation" I don't necessarily mean using bulk load or 
stuff like that. What I mean is handling large amounts of similar data 
at the same time. That doesn't say anything about transactions or 
logging problems.
Imagine you have 100k or rows to load, each having FKs to (hopefully) 
existing rows
- Step 1: load the rows into a temp table
- Step 2: identify duplicates, logging  and deleting them
- Step 3: insert all data satisfying the FK constraints.
- Step 4: log all that didn't insert.

This are relatively few statements (not the simplest), which can be 
handled in a safe manner.
Just an example, how a RDBMS can do the job in a mass oriented (and thus 
optimizable) way.

Regards,
Andreas



Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:35:51 +0200
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>
Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta