performance - Cost of Inserts vs Update in SQL Server

Question

I have a table with more than a millon rows. This table is used to index tiff images. Each image has fields like date, number, etc. I have users that index these images in batches of 500. I need to know if it is better to first insert 500 rows and then perform 500 updates or, when the user finishes indexing, to do the 500 inserts with all the data. A very important thing is that if I do the 500 inserts at first, this time is free for me because I can do it the night before.

So the question is: is it better to do inserts or inserts and updates, and why? I have defined a id value for each image, and I also have other indices on the fields.

Answer 1

Updates in Sql server result in ghosted rows - i.e. Sql crosses one row out and puts a new one in. The crossed out row is deleted later.

Both inserts and updates can cause page-splits in this way, they both effectively 'add' data, it's just that updates flag the old stuff out first.

On top of this updates need to look up the row first, which for lots of data can take longer than the update.

Inserts will just about always be quicker, especially if they are either in order or if the underlying table doesn't have a clustered index.

When inserting larger amounts of data into a table look at the current indexes - they can take a while to change and build. Adding values in the middle of an index is always slower.

You can think of it like appending to an address book: Mr Z can just be added to the last page, while you'll have to find space in the middle for Mr M.