On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Igor Chudov <ichu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let's say that I want to do INSERT SELECT of 1,000 items into a table. > The > > table has some ints, varchars, TEXT and BLOB fields. > > Would the time that it takes, differ a great deal, depending on whether > the > > table has only 100,000 or 5,000,000 records? > > Depends. Got any indexes? The more indexes you have to update the > slower it's gonna be. You can test this, it's easy to create test > rows like so: > > insert into test select generate_series(1,10000); > > etc. There's lots of examples floating around on how to do that. So, > make yourself a couple of tables and test it. > Well, my question is, rather, whether the time to do a bulk INSERT of N records into a large table, would take substantially longer than a bulk insert of N records into a small table. In other words, does the populating time grow as the table gets more and more rows? i
