Rod Taylor wrote:
> > INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (1), (2);
> >
> > would be executed in a similar fashion to:
> >
> > INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (1);
> > INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (2);
> >
> > Does this sound reasonable?
Sounds good to me.
> I debated doing the above too. In fact, I had a partial
> implementation at one point.
>
> However, the resulting purpose of allowing such a construct is to
> enable the speeds copy achieves with the variation that is found in an
> insert. ...
I thought the purpose of the item was merely for compatibility with
other databases that support this syntax. I don't think it will ever
match COPY performance, and I don't think stuffing a huge INSERT into
the database rather than COPY rows will ever be a preferred method.
I only see VALUES used by INSERT so if you can think of a clean way to
make that work as multiple INSERTs, I think it would be a good idea.
Hopefully, it will be one localized change, and we can remove it if we
ever want to support VALUES in more complex situations, as Tom
mentioned.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
