COPY vs. INSERT

From: Walter K. <alden14004_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 06:39:50 -0500
Message-Id: <10506.106347@fatcity.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BFC481.B243DB40 Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Which is more efficient, to populate a table via a standard INSERT = command or using the SQL*Plus COPY command? Has anyone tried to = benchmark the two? What are the pros/cons of each? The table to be = populated will always need to be appended to, never truncated.

Thanks in advance for the advice.
-wk

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BFC481.B243DB40 Content-Type: text/html;

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Which is more efficient, to populate a =
table via a=20
standard INSERT command or using the SQL*Plus COPY command? Has anyone = tried to=20
benchmark the two? What are the pros/cons of each? The table to be = populated=20
will always need to be appended to, never truncated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks in advance for the =
advice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>-wk</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BFC481.B243DB40--

Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. Received on Tue May 23 2000 - 06:39:50 CDT