RE: Some new results

[William Washington III <w.washington3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Did you do a similar test with UPDATEs?  I would imagine similar results.

I'm assuming the tables/files in question have appropriate indexes/logicals
built.

William


> date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:36:48 -0500
> from: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> subject: RE: Some new results
> 
> > From: Joe Pluta
> > 
> > I was not surprised to find that, as usual, WRITE is ten times faster
> > than INSERT VALUES.  However, I WAS very interested to find that
> INSERT
> > VALUES was actually a tiny bit FASTER than INSERT data structure.  And
> > while INSERT MODS of ten rows was a smidge faster than INSERT VALUES
> > (less than 1% faster), INSERT MODS with 100 rows was actually SLOWER
> > than INSERT MODS with ten rows.  And finally, all four techniques were
> > within 1% of each other, and all were ten times as slow as native I/O.
> 
> I HATE when that happens...
> 
> I should have been suspicious of the results.  I knew it.  While the
> numbers on the INSERT VALUES and INSERT DS are correct, the INSERT MODS
> was bogus.  I was running the wrong program.
> 
> The test results are MUCH more realistic now:
> 
> 1. INSERT 10 rows at a time is three times slower than WRITE
> 2. INSERT 100 rows at a time is 25% faster than WRITE
> 
> So it looks like the break-even point, at least for SQL INSERT vs.
> blocked WRITE, is somewhere around 80 rows or so at a time.  But even at
> more modest 10 rows at a time, it's not a horrible amount of overhead.
> 
> But record at a time INSERTs, no matter how you slice them, are awful.
> 
> Joe