> On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:29 PM, Alban Hertroys <haram...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think you’re overcomplicating the matter. > > I’d just do it as a single update in one transaction. It’s only 50M rows. It > may take half an hour or so on decent hardware, depending on how > resource-intensive your function is. > I must emphasize: This estimate is HIGHLY dependent on hardware and the complexity of the table (number of indices, etc). (I suspect there’s a correlation between table size (business value) and number of indices)
> If that fails[1], only then would I start looking into batching things. But > then you still need to figure out why it fails and what to do about that; if > it fails it will probably fail fast, and if not, then you’re looking at a > one-off situation that won’t require more than a few workarounds - after > which you can just run the update again. > > Ad 1). No harm has been done, it’s a single transaction that rolled back. > > Alban Hertroys > -- > If you can't see the forest for the trees, > cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.
