Received: from netcom15.netcom.com (zalman@netcom15.netcom.com [192.100.81.128]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA26833 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:44:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from zalman@netcom.com) Received: (from zalman@localhost) by netcom15.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) id XAA18312; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:44:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Zalman Stern Message-Id: <199909020644.XAA18312@netcom15.netcom.com> Subject: Re: your mail To: lists@mne.de (Martin Neumann) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pgsql-sql@postgreSQL.org In-Reply-To: from "Martin Neumann" at Sep 2, 99 08:04:24 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would either validate the data in the script, or batch the records into bunches of 100 or 1000 or whatever inserts. If one of the batches fails, then reprocess only that batch using individual inserts. I believe using transactions of moderate size will be faster than using really really huge ones. There are of course also transactional semantics issues if you have concurrent access going on. -Z-