 |
 |
Archives of the TeradataForum
Message Posted: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 @ 16:27:24 GMT
| Subj: | | Multiload VS. Bulkload |
| |
| From: | | Walt Craig |
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.
Walt Craig
Forelyn Associates, Inc.
| |
