INTO' creates the destination table, it exclusively owns that table and is quicker compared to the 'INSERT … SELECT'. Because the 'INSERT … SELECT' inserts data into an existing table, it is slower and requires more resources due to the higher number of logical reads and greater transaction log usage.
INSERT INTO SELECT vs SELECT INTO: Both the statements could be used to copy data from one table to another. But INSERT INTO SELECT could be used only if the target table exists whereas SELECT INTO statement could be used even if the target table doesn't exist as it creates the target table if it doesn't exist.
If you are using Insert or Insert into both will insert the data in Table. However Insert into is basically used to fatch the data from another table using select command and insert into table where you want to insert the data.
The INSERT INTO SELECT statement copies data from one table and inserts it into another table. The INSERT INTO SELECT statement requires that the data types in source and target tables match. Note: The existing records in the target table are unaffected.
They do different things. Use INSERT
when the table exists. Use SELECT INTO
when it does not.
Yes. INSERT
with no table hints is normally logged. SELECT INTO
is minimally logged assuming proper trace flags are set.
In my experience SELECT INTO
is most commonly used with intermediate data sets, like #temp
tables, or to copy out an entire table like for a backup. INSERT INTO
is used when you insert into an existing table with a known structure.
EDIT
To address your edit, they do different things. If you are making a table and want to define the structure use CREATE TABLE
and INSERT
. Example of an issue that can be created: You have a small table with a varchar field. The largest string in your table now is 12 bytes. Your real data set will need up to 200 bytes. If you do SELECT INTO
from your small table to make a new one, the later INSERT
will fail with a truncation error because your fields are too small.
Which statement is preferable? Depends on what you are doing.
Are there other performance implications? If the table is a permanent table, you can create indexes at the time of table creation which has implications for performance both negatively and positiviely. Select into does not recreate indexes that exist on current tables and thus subsequent use of the table may be slower than it needs to be.
What is a good use case for SELECT...INTO over INSERT INTO ...? Select into is used if you may not know the table structure in advance. It is faster to write than create table and an insert statement, so it is used to speed up develoment at times. It is often faster to use when you are creating a quick temp table to test things or a backup table of a specific query (maybe records you are going to delete). It should be rare to see it used in production code that will run multiple times (except for temp tables) because it will fail if the table was already in existence.
It is sometimes used inappropriately by people who don't know what they are doing. And they can cause havoc in the db as a result. I strongly feel it is inappropriate to use SELECT INTO for anything other than a throwaway table (a temporary backup, a temp table that will go away at the end of the stored proc ,etc.). Permanent tables need real thought as to their design and SELECT INTO makes it easy to avoid thinking about anything even as basic as what columns and what datatypes.
In general, I prefer the use of the create table and insert statement - you have more controls and it is better for repeatable processes. Further, if the table is a permanent table, it should be created from a separate create table script (one that is in source control) as creating permanent objects should not, in general, in code are inserts/deletes/updates or selects from a table. Object changes should be handled separately from data changes because objects have implications beyond the needs of a specific insert/update/select/delete. You need to consider the best data types, think about FK constraints, PKs and other constraints, consider auditing requirements, think about indexing, etc.
Each statement has a distinct use case. They are not interchangeable.
SELECT...INTO MyTable...
creates a new MyTable
where one did not exist before.
INSERT INTO MyTable...SELECT...
is used when MyTable
already exists.
The primary difference is that SELECT INTO MyTable will create a new table called MyTable with the results, while INSERT INTO requires that MyTable already exists.
You would use SELECT INTO only in the case where the table didn't exist and you wanted to create it based on the results of your query. As such, these two statements really are not comparable. They do very different things.
In general, SELECT INTO is used more often for one off tasks, while INSERT INTO is used regularly to add rows to tables.
EDIT:
While you can use CREATE TABLE and INSERT INTO to accomplish what SELECT INTO does, with SELECT INTO you do not have to know the table definition beforehand. SELECT INTO is probably included in SQL because it makes tasks like ad hoc reporting or copying tables much easier.
Actually SELECT ... INTO not only creates the table but will fail if it already exists, so basically the only time you would use it is when the table you are inserting to does not exists.
In regards to your EDIT:
I personally mainly use SELECT ... INTO when I am creating a temp table. That to me is the main use. However I also use it when creating new tables with many columns with similar structures to other tables and then edit it in order to save time.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With