On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:51:29 -0500,
  "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:22:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Also, there is a whole lot of one-time-per-statement overhead that can
> > be amortized across many rows instead of only one.  Stuff like opening
> > the target table, looking up the per-column I/O conversion functions,
> > identifying trigger functions if any, yadda yadda.  It's not *that*
> > expensive, but compared to an operation as small as inserting a single
> > row, it's significant.
> Has thought been given to supporting inserting multiple rows in a single
> insert? DB2 supported:
>     (1,2,3),
>     (4,5,6),
>     (7,8,9)
> );
> I'm not sure how standard that is or if other databases support it.

It's on the TODO list. I don't remember anyone bringing this up for about
a year now, so I doubt anyone is actively working on it.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to