X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F80329CD2
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:15:08 +0100 (BST)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 28412-06
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:14:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.logi-track.com (www.logi-track.com [213.239.193.212])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587E2329C65
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:14:58 +0100 (BST)
Received: from kingfisher.intern.logi-track.com (G6863.g.pppool.de
	[80.185.104.99])
	by mail.logi-track.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE523305A3;
	Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:14:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from kingfisher.intern.logi-track.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by kingfisher.intern.logi-track.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 04A1EAB306;
	Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:14:53 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:14:52 +0200
From: Markus Schaber <schabios@logi-track.com>
To: PostgreSQL Performance List <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
Message-ID: <20040914141452.002e5d4e@kingfisher.intern.logi-track.com>
In-Reply-To: <pB21d.193816$X12.122954@edtnps84>
References: <20040912042442.49915.qmail@web41508.mail.yahoo.com>
	<pB21d.193816$X12.122954@edtnps84>
Organization: logi-track ag, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?z=FCrich?=
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu)
X-Face: Nx5T&>Nj$VrVPv}sC3IL&)TqHHOKCz/|)R$i"*r@w0{*I6w;
	UNU_hdl1J4NI_m{IMztq=>cmM}1gCLbAF+9\#CGkG8}Y{x%SuQ>1#t:;
	Z(|\qdd[i]HStki~#w1$TPF}:0w-7"S\Ev|_a$K<GcL?@F\BY,ut6tC0P<$eV&ypzvlZ~R00!A
X-PGP-Key: http://schabi.de/pubkey.asc
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200409/113
X-Sequence-Number: 8241

Hi, Mischa,

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:47:17 GMT
Mischa Sandberg <ischamay.andbergsay@activestateway.com> wrote:

> On the other hand, if you do warehouse-style loading (Insert, or PG=20
> COPY, into a temp table; and then 'upsert' into the perm table), I can=20
> guarantee 2500 inserts/sec is no problem.

As we can forsee that we'll have similar insert rates to cope with in
the not-so-far future, what do you mean with 'upsert'? Do you mean a
stored procedure that iterates over the temp table?

Generally, what is the fastest way for doing bulk processing of=20
update-if-primary-key-matches-and-insert-otherwise operations?

Thanks,
Markus Schaber

--=20
markus schaber | dipl. informatiker
logi-track ag | rennweg 14-16 | ch 8001 z=FCrich
phone +41-43-888 62 52 | fax +41-43-888 62 53
mailto:schabios@logi-track.com | www.logi-track.com