Archives of the TeradataForum
Message Posted: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 @ 16:27:24 GMT
MultiLoad has become the de facto standard for INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, & UPSERT activity to an existing table. I was browsing through Brian Marshall's book 'The Teradata Database, Application and Archive/Recovery Utilities' when I encountered a chart depicting performance comparisons whose numbers surprised me. The test platform was a 32 Amp 5100 running V2 (the release is not identified). A Bulkload INSERT of 2K rows and an UPDATE of 200K rows into a table of 60M rows took 18 minutes, while the same process in MultiLoad took 26 minutes. Likewise a Bulkload INSERT of 202K rows into a table of 200M rows took 18 minutes, while MultiLoad took 26 minutes.
Okay, I know there are plenty of reasons for using MultiLoad instead of Bulkload, including the fact that on a system without an IBM host, Bulkload is not available. My question then, is Bulkload really the tool of choice in a situation with a small batch window and simple INSERTS or UPDATES of a relatively small number of rows into a large table? 2K Inserts is a tiny percent, while 200K rows worth of UPDATES is only slightly larger.
BTW the chart also shows that you can accomplish the same thing in 3 minutes by using Fastload and temp tables, but that isn't always a practical option.
|Copyright 2016 - All Rights Reserved|
|Last Modified: 27 Dec 2016|