Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

document un-optimized behaviour of executemany #213

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 1, 2023

Conversation

martinitus
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves #196

@martinitus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@susodapop here you go!
Thanks for considering a merge of this! :-)
Regards, Martin

@susodapop
Copy link
Contributor

For anyone watching this, it will merge soon. I wrote about a workaround for this inefficiency (until we can actually implement a more efficient one) here: #239 (comment)

Jesse Whitehouse added 2 commits October 31, 2023 21:11
Signed-off-by: Jesse Whitehouse <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@susodapop susodapop left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. I ran black on the source files. Will follow-up with an addition to examples/ with a workaround.

@susodapop susodapop merged commit abe6891 into databricks:main Nov 1, 2023
14 checks passed
@martinitus martinitus deleted the martinitus-patch-1 branch November 3, 2023 11:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Connections executemany implementation is not a prepared statement.
2 participants