Drop Table
Support Forum for database administrators and web based access to important newsgroups related to databases
which would be faster ?I have 2 tables that i want to do an insert select from from QA Window 1 insert <newtable> select * from <oldtable> insert <newtable1> select * from <oldtable1> ---------------------------- QA window 2 insert <newtable> select * from <oldtable> ---------------------- QA window 3 insert <newtable1> select * from <oldtable1> ---------------------------- Will QA Window 1 where I have the 2 inserts running serially be slower than when I run QA window 2 and 3 in parallel, assuming they are all on the same disk or will it be the same ? Just seeking answers based on experience and theory
Post Follow-up to this message
Re: which would be faster ?Hassan wrote: > Will QA Window 1 where I have the 2 inserts running serially be > slower than when I run QA window 2 and 3 in parallel Probably, but no way to tell without testing. You'll increase the disk IO executing in parallel. -- David Gugick Quest Software www.imceda.com www.quest.com
Post Follow-up to this message Re: which would be faster ?So 2 is faster ? "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@quest.com> wrote in message news:%23LR7Z64kFHA.3960@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hassan wrote: > > Probably, but no way to tell without testing. You'll increase the disk > IO executing in parallel. > > > > > -- > David Gugick > Quest Software > www.imceda.com > www.quest.com >
Post Follow-up to this message Re: which would be faster ?hi Hassan just see the execution plan. u might get any idea. the result also depends on the data that u are using -- best Regards, Chandra http://chanduas.blogspot.com/ http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/ --------------------------------------- "David Gugick" wrote: > Hassan wrote: > > Probably, but no way to tell without testing. You'll increase the disk > IO executing in parallel. > > > > > -- > David Gugick > Quest Software > www.imceda.com > www.quest.com > >
Post Follow-up to this message Re: which would be faster ?Hassan wrote: > So 2 is faster ? I'll repeat myself :-) Probably, but no way to tell without testing. -- David Gugick Quest Software www.imceda.com www.quest.com
Post Follow-up to this message Re: which would be faster ?I did a little experiment for this scenario with 150 MB in "oldtable" and 150 MB in "oldtable1". There was no significant performance difference. All was done on the same one SCSI disk (both sources and both destinations). Then I did the same experiment, but this time "oldtable" and "newtable" were on a different disk from "oldtable1" and "newtable1". It will come as no surprise that in this case the seperate processes were considerably faster. HTH, Gert-Jan Hassan wrote: > > I have 2 tables that i want to do an insert select from > > from QA Window 1 > > insert <newtable> > select * from <oldtable> > > insert <newtable1> > select * from <oldtable1> > > ---------------------------- > QA window 2 > > insert <newtable> > select * from <oldtable> > > ---------------------- > > QA window 3 > > insert <newtable1> > select * from <oldtable1> > > ---------------------------- > > Will QA Window 1 where I have the 2 inserts running serially be slower tha n > when I run QA window 2 and 3 in parallel, assuming they are all on the sam e > disk or will it be the same ? Just seeking answers based on experience and > theory
Post Follow-up to this message
Sponsored Links
Show a Printable Version
Email This Page to Someone!
Receive updates to this thread
