Which is faster for millions of records: Permanent Table or Temp Tables?
I have to use it only for 15 million records. After processing is complete, we delete these records.
Temporary Tables are considered as regular database object, in terms of transaction handling and performance, therefore using many temporary tables in your stored procedures can lead to very poor database performance.
CTE has its uses - when data in the CTE is small and there is strong readability improvement as with the case in recursive tables. However, its performance is certainly no better than table variables and when one is dealing with very large tables, temporary tables significantly outperform CTE.
Assuming you follow the basic rules-of-engagement, then you should consider table variables as a first choice when working with relatively small data sets. They are easier to work with and they trigger fewer recompiles in the routines in which they're used, compared to using temporary tables.
Looking at SQL Profiler results from these queries (each were run 10 times and averages are below) we can see that the CTE just slightly outperforms both the temporary table and table variable queries when it comes to overall duration.
In your situation we use a permanent table called a staging table. This is a common method with large imports. In fact we generally use two staging tables one with the raw data and one with the cleaned up data which makes researching issues with the feed easier (they are almost always a result of new and varied ways our clients find to send us junk data, but we have to be able to prove that). Plus you avoid issues like having to grow temp db or causing issues for other users who want to use temp db but have to wait while it grows for you, etc.
You can also use SSIS and skip the staging table(s), but I find the ability to go back and research without having to reload a 50,000,000 table is very helpful.
If you don't use tempdb, make sure the recovery model of the database you are working in is not set to "Full". This will cause a lot of overhead on those 50M row inserts.
Ideally, you should use a staging database, simple recovery model, on RAID 10 if possible, and size it ahead of time to provide enough space for all your operations. Turn auto-grow off.
Use INSERT ... WITH (TABLOCK) to avoid row-level logging:
INSERT INTO StagingTable WITH (TABLOCK) (.....)
SELECT .....
Likewise for BULK INSERT. If you drop and recreate, create your clustered index prior to insert. If you can't, insert into one table first, then insert from that into another table with the right clustering, and truncate the first table. Avoid small batch sizes on BULK INSERT if possible. Read the BULK INSERT documentation closely, as you can sabotage performance with the wrong options.
Avoid INSERT ... EXEC. Every row is logged.
Avoid UPDATEs, unless you need to calculate running totals. Generally, it is cheaper to insert from one table into another, and then truncate the first table, than to update in place. Running total calculations are the exception, since they can be done with an UPDATE and variables to accumulate values between rows.
Avoid table variables for anything except control structures, since they prevent parallelization. Do not join your 50M row table to a table variable, use a temp table instead.
Don't be afraid of cursors for iteration. Use cursor variables, and declare them with the STATIC keyword against low-cardinality columns at the front of the clustered index. Use this to slice big tables into more manageable chunks.
Don't try to do too much in any one statement.
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