Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ibatis-user-java-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 27324 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2008 22:05:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Jan 2008 22:05:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 71159 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2008 22:05:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ibatis-user-java-archive@ibatis.apache.org Received: (qmail 70972 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2008 22:05:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-java-help@ibatis.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user-java@ibatis.apache.org Received: (qmail 70961 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jan 2008 22:05:08 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:05:07 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of clamey@localmatters.com designates 216.241.189.144 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.241.189.144] (HELO mailhost01.ad.corp.localmatters.com) (216.241.189.144) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:04:44 +0000 Received: from 10.4.0.152 ([10.4.0.152]) by mailhost01.ad.corp.localmatters.com ([10.200.4.32]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:04:45 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:04:43 -0700 Subject: Re: Performance question From: Christopher Lamey To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Performance question Thread-Index: AchTFcu1gpnokCXtSY2oB8arSIFQDgABcVuKAACfYAAAANz6jwAscFzQAAEwyF8AALp2YAABiM2f In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 1/10/08 2:52 PM, "Brian Parkinson" wrote: > I wasn't quite sure in your answer whether the startBatch/executeBatch > should work properly under the setup I have now - I was assuming that > the performance problems I encountered were related (in part at least) > to the fact that the statements weren't being batched, but run > sequentially and so making many calls to the db. I'm just a little > confused on this point. Yes, it sounds to me like you haven't been batching up until now, so you should see some performance improvement with the new setup. Keep in mind that too many inserts in a batch can actually be slower than no batch at all. Cheers, Chris