This is more of a theory question.
If I’m running 50,000 queries that insert new rows, and 50,000 queries that updates those rows, which one will take less time?
Share
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.
This is more of a theory question.
If I’m running 50,000 queries that insert new rows, and 50,000 queries that updates those rows, which one will take less time?
Insert would be faster because with update you need to first search for the record that you are going to update and then perform the update.
Though this hardly seems like a valid comparison as you never have a choice whether to insert or update as the two fill two completely different needs.
EDIT: I should add too that this is with the assumption that there are no insert triggers or other situations that could cause potential bottlenecks.