Which is slower to insert data into a memory optimized table?

Which is slower to insert data into a memory optimized table?

I have observed that inserting data into a Memory-Optimized Table is much slower than an equivalent parallelized insert to a disk-based table on a 5-SSD stripe set. –DDL for Memory-Optimized Table CREATE TABLE [MYSCHEMA].

Can a memory optimized table outperform a parallel insert?

Even if the database is in Full Recovery mode, the parallel INSERT to disk-based heap outperforms the INSERT to a Memory-Optimized table. This continues to remain true if comparable indexes are added to the disk-based table after the INSERT.

Is there a memory optimizer for SQL Server?

SQL dabbled with things like ‘pin table’ in the past but the optimizer, choosing what pages are in memory based on real activity, is probably as good as it gets for almost all cases. This has been performance tuned over decades.

Can a memory optimized table substitute a temporary table?

Memory-optimized tables are not supposed to substitute temporary tables, as already mentioned, you’ll see the profit in highly concurrent OLTP environment, while as you guess temporary table is visible only to your session, there is no concurrency at all. Eliminate latches and locks.

How long does it take to insert a row into a big memory table?

The query plan shows a serialized insert to BIG_MEMORY_TABLE. Each set of 25,000 rows takes around 1400ms. If I do this to a disk-based table, hosted on a 5-SSD stripe (5,000 IOPS per disk, 200MB/sec throughput), the inserts progress much faster, averaging around 700ms.

How to optimize memory in tempdb database?

Remove the DROP TABLE #tempSessionC statements from your code – optionally you can insert a DELETE FROM dbo.soSessionC statement, in case memory size is a potential concern A traditional table variable represents a table in the tempdb database. For much faster performance you can memory-optimize your table variable.