Re: Batchupdates performance
- From: "pilmart" <martin.scullion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 May 2007 23:51:22 -0700
"Del Murray" <Del.Murray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PS .. you read the whole table 500 times .. I'd say 3 minutes was prettyHi there
quick :-)
What I am doing is updating 35 fields for 500 records , its a good suggestion but I am including the key field in the select statement as well, however I am including it by default because the dataset I'm updating is based on a select * from x where etc etc so the primary key is included by default.
The initial updates are very fast cos the locate command uses the primary key as it's search so it zips along nicely, it's just the batch update command thats slow.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Batchupdates performance
- From: Del Murray
- Re: Batchupdates performance
- References:
- Batchupdates performance
- From: pilmart
- Re: Batchupdates performance
- From: Del Murray
- Re: Batchupdates performance
- From: Del Murray
- Batchupdates performance
- Prev by Date: Re: New to Sql Database's
- Next by Date: Re: Batchupdates performance
- Previous by thread: Re: Batchupdates performance
- Next by thread: Re: Batchupdates performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|