Compare BULK INSERT vs INSERT

Hello,
I am wondering is the Transaction Log logged differently between BULK INSERT
vs INSERT? Performance speaking, which operations is generally faster given
the same amout of data inserted.
Sincerely,
-LawrenceIf conditions are right (e.g. destination table is not replicated), BULK
INSERT can exploit minimal transaction logging for performance advantage.
Linchi
"Lawrence" wrote:

> Hello,
> I am wondering is the Transaction Log logged differently between BULK INSE
RT
> vs INSERT? Performance speaking, which operations is generally faster giv
en
> the same amout of data inserted.
> Sincerely,
> -Lawrence
>|||I should add that in SQL2005, INSERT can make use of the bulk rowset provide
r
in the OpenRowset function. But I have not tested the performance difference
,
if any, between BULK INSERT and INSERT ... SELECT FROM OpenRowSet(bulk...).
Linchi
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> If conditions are right (e.g. destination table is not replicated), BULK
> INSERT can exploit minimal transaction logging for performance advantage.
> Linchi
> "Lawrence" wrote:
>|||"Lawrence" <Lawrence@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:097C24AA-AE0A-45DC-9C2D-B09AAD9A4539@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am wondering is the Transaction Log logged differently between BULK
INSERT
> vs INSERT? Performance speaking, which operations is generally faster
given
> the same amout of data inserted.
>
BULK INSERT can be incredibly fast compared to INSERT, simply because of how
it can handle the logging.

> Sincerely,
> -Lawrence
>