On Wednesday 12 June 2002 16:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> John Taylor <postgres@jtresponse.co.uk> writes:
> > I'm running a transaction with about 1600 INSERTs.
> > Each INSERT involves a subselect.
>
> > I've noticed that if one of the INSERTs fails, the remaining INSERTs run in about
> > 1/2 the time expected.
>
> > Is postgresql optimising the inserts, knowing that it will rollback at the end ?
>
> > If not, why do the queries run faster after the failure ?
>
> Queries after the failure aren't run at all; they're only passed through
> the parser's grammar so it can look for a COMMIT or ROLLBACK command.
> Normal processing resumes after ROLLBACK. If you were paying attention
> to the return codes you'd notice complaints like
>
> regression=# begin;
> BEGIN
> regression=# select 1/0;
> ERROR: floating point exception! The last floating point operation either exceeded legal ranges or was a divide by
zero
> -- subsequent queries will be rejected like so:
> regression=# select 1/0;
> WARNING: current transaction is aborted, queries ignored until end of transaction block
> *ABORT STATE*
Well, I'm using JDBC, and it isn't throwing any exceptions, so I assumed it was working :-/
>
> I'd actually expect much more than a 2:1 speed differential, because the
> grammar is not a significant part of the runtime AFAICT. Perhaps you
> are including some large amount of communication overhead in that
> comparison?
>
Yes, now that I think about it - I am getting a bigger differential
I'm actually running queries to update two slightly different databases in parallel,
so the failing one is taking almost no time at all.
Thanks
JohnT
