Hi,

> I have to update a DB with a lot of small changes (usually updates,
> but sometimes inserts and deletes). The changes are not usually
> logically related, but sometimes they are, especially for deletes. In
> terms of performance, is it faster to do as much as possible in a
> single transaction (or maybe a few "chunks"), or is it essentially the
> same if each update is performed in its own transaction? What factors
> might make a difference? The size of the rows in question? The
> number of rows in the tables? The mix of update/insert/delete? Cache
> size? Forced writes? Indices? Other things? I could run some
> tests, but I'm not really sure what parameters can or should be adjusted.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated!

Use a transaction per unit of work. Period.

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com