On Apr 21, 4:01 pm, ericwoodwo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 21, 3:36 pm, Scott David Daniels <scott.dani...@acm.org> wrote: > > > Philip Semanchuk wrote: > > > ... If you're doing a mass insert to populate a blank table it also often > > > helps to postpone index creation until after the table is populated.... > > > I forget the name of the SQL Server bulk loader, but for large loads, I > > used to populate a fresh table with the bulk data, then do UPDATEs and > > INSERTs to get the data spread out into the main tables. You (the OP) > > might try a scheme like that. > > > --Scott David Daniels > > scott.dani...@acm.org > > Hmm..I think I'm going to move my question over to a SQL forum because > this is starting to feel like a SQL, rather than a python issue to me. > > Three times now after letting the system "rest" where I go off an do > other things and then run my script it completes in 10 seconds. If I > drop tables and start fresh immediately after that it takes 35 > seconds. If I drop the tables and wait an hour and then run the > script it'll finish in 10 seconds again. > > That makes me think it's a SQL config or optimization issue more than > a python issue. > > oh and the times I listed above were totals from the start of > execution so the string.join() was taking 0.047 seconds to run. It > was taking 9 seconds to get my data from the com object and format it > but the join was quite fast.
Also if I restart SQL it will respond very quickly as well...down to 10 secs again. Not sure why. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
