MySQL插入查询优化

Question

Which of the two methods below will be faster for inserting a large number of rows into a table.

Query method 1 : Execute query one by one.

INSERT INTO tbl_user(id, name, number) VALUES(NULL, 'A', '9999999999');
INSERT INTO tbl_user(id, name, number) VALUES(NULL, 'B', '9999999999');
INSERT INTO tbl_user(id, name, number) VALUES(NULL, 'C', '9999999999');

Query method 2 : Execute query at once.

INSERT INTO tbl_user(id, name, number) VALUES(NULL, 'A', '9999999999'),
                                             (NULL, 'B', '9999999999'), 
                                             (NULL, 'C', '9999999999');

Answer 1

Since there are a few arguments, I thought I would try a benchmark, but first

 CREATE TABLE `tbl_user` (
  `id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `name` varchar(20) DEFAULT NULL,
  `number` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB 

I then generate, SQL queries of the form in the question with 2 lines of python.

Scenario 1:
Many single inserts with the queries each being exactly the same

INSERT INTO tbl_user VALUES(NULL,'A','9999999');
INSERT INTO tbl_user VALUES(NULL,'A','9999999');

1000 Rows; Average (mean) running time of three executions 45.80 seconds
5000 Rows; single run 220 seconds

Scenario 2:
A single query to insert a 1000 rows, it looks like this:

INSERT INTO tbl_user VALUES(NULL,'A','9999999'),
(NULL,'A','9999999'),
(NULL,'A','9999999'),
(NULL,'A','9999999'),

1000 rows Average (mean) running time of three executions 0.17 Seconds
5000 rows Average (mean) running time of three executions 0.48
10000 rows Average (mean) running time of three executions 1.06

Scenario 3:
Similar to scenario 1 but with a START TRANSACTION and COMMIT wrapped around the insert statements

1000 rows Average (mean) running time of three executions 0.16 seconds
5000 rows Average (mean) running time of three executions 0.48
10000 rows Average (mean) running time of three executions 0.91

Conclusion:
Scenario 2, which is what's proposed in two other answers indeed outperforms scenario 1 in a big way. With this data, it's hard to choose between 2 and 3 though. More rigorous testing with a larger number of inserts is required. But without that information i would probably go with three, the reason being that parsing a very large string usually has it's overheads and so does preparing one! I suspect that if we tried to insert about 50,000 records at once in a single statement it might actually be a lot slower.

Answer 2

Second method(query) is faster then the first one.

Because in first method it executes three different queries on a table where as in second method it gets executed only once to insert multiple records in table.

You will see major difference when you insert hundreds of rows at a single time.

Answer 3

Second query is much faster than first. As per document factors contributing to increase in performance of multiple insert in a single statement are:-

9.2.2.1 Speed of INSERT Statements

To optimize insert speed, combine many small operations into a single large operation. Ideally, you make a single connection, send the data for many new rows at once, and delay all index updates and consistency checking until the very end.

The time required for inserting a row is determined by the following factors, where the numbers indicate approximate proportions:

Connecting: (3)

Sending query to server: (2)

Parsing query: (2)

Inserting row: (1 × size of row)

Inserting indexes: (1 × number of indexes)

Closing: (1)

If you are inserting many rows from the same client at the same time, use INSERT statements with multiple VALUES lists to insert several rows at a time. This is considerably faster (many times faster in some cases) than using separate single-row INSERT statements. If you are adding data to a nonempty table, you can tune the bulk_insert_buffer_size variable to make data insertion even faster.