Will give that a try. thanks.
was actually interested if the 2nd approach is common practice or if
there are some reasons not to do it that way.
Alex
Sean Davis wrote:
On 11/9/05 9:45 AM, "Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
have just a general question...
I have a table of 10M record
On 11/9/05 9:45 AM, "Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> have just a general question...
>
> I have a table of 10M records, unique key on 5 fields.
> I need to update/insert 200k records in one go.
>
> I could do a select to check for existence and then either insert or update.
> Or simply
Quote from the link below:
"Tip: A block containing an EXCEPTION clause is significantly more
expensive to enter and exit than a block without one. Therefore, don't
use EXCEPTION without need."
I would think this places an automatic save-point at the begin of the
block. I doubt this would give t
am 10.11.2005, um 1:45:46 +1100 mailte Alex folgendes:
> Hi,
> have just a general question...
>
> I have a table of 10M records, unique key on 5 fields.
> I need to update/insert 200k records in one go.
>
> I could do a select to check for existence and then either insert or
> update.
> Or si
I guess the best solution is one which allows you to do it in batches,
as inserting is more efficient if you don't commit after each insert.
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 15:45, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
> have just a general question...
>
> I have a table of 10M records, unique key on 5 fields.
> I need to upda
Hi,
have just a general question...
I have a table of 10M records, unique key on 5 fields.
I need to update/insert 200k records in one go.
I could do a select to check for existence and then either insert or update.
Or simply insert, check on the error code an update if required.
The 2nd seems
