On Saturday 03 November 2007 22:50, Vlad Khorsun wrote:

> > Vlad Khorsun wrote:
> >>> If the server knew it was a bulk load, it could lock the table, load
> >>> the data, and build the indexes using a sort and fast load / fast merge
> >>> algorithm (more or less equivalent to dropping the indexes, loading,
> >>> and redefining the indexes but easier). On the other hand, "locking
> >>> the table" isn't exactly a classic concept.
> >>
> >> Hmm, why do we need to lock the table ?
> >
> > If indexes are completely disabled, no. Otherwise the records will
> > appear no to be there. If the load is done under a single transaction,
> > however, this isn't an issue.
>
> I thought only about singe transaction case. More - about single
> statement.

Why do we need to execute buld load not in single transaction? Certainly,
that's all about single transaction. Better if it will happen also inside
single request.