I'm not an expert, I would think if you can spare using only one transaction , it would be way way faster to do it !
the system simply could skip keeping log to be ready to roll back for a 1 billion row update ! Of course it would be preferable to use psql to execute statement by statement as separate transactions , and do it with X several parallel psql (splitting the big text file into X parts), yet Joey seemed reluctant to use console =) Cheers, Rémi-C 2013/11/27 Albe Laurenz <laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at> > John R Pierce wrote: > > On 11/26/2013 9:24 AM, Joey Quinn wrote: > >> When I ran that command (select * from pg_stat_activity"), it returned > >> the first six lines of the scripts. I'm fairly sure it has gotten a > >> bit beyond that (been running over 24 hours now, and the size has > >> increased about 300 GB). Am I missing something for it to tell me what > >> the last line processed was? > > > > that means your GUI lobbed the entire file at postgres in a single > > PQexec call, so its all being executed as a single statement. > > > > psql -f "filename.sql" dbname would have processed the queries one at > > a time. > > Yes, but that would slow down processing considerably, which would > not help in this case. > > I'd opt for > psql -1 -f "filename.sql" dbname > so it all runs in a single transaction. > > Yours, > Laurenz Albe > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
