Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Merge can performs insert, update, or delete operations on a target table based on the results of a join with a source table. For example, you can synchronize two tables by inserting, updating, or deleting rows in one table based on differences found in the other table.
Is anyone familiar with the performance to use “Merge” versus the traditional logic to check existence and decide the update or insert then?
Thanks!
MERGE is generally faster because there are less DML operations, and it’s also the recommended approach from the documentation. With the “traditional” way, you’re processing the tables twice – once to check for existence and once to execute your DML. With MERGE, everything is encapsulated with one operation – hence one set of locks issued, one set of logging, etc. etc.
However, it is pretty subjective on what your queries are actually doing. You should probably take a look at Optimizing MERGE Statement Performance on MSDN.