bulk load option native? or formatfile?

I tested bulk load
I had knowed native option is faster.
But test resulted that formatfile is faster than native option
Test data is 120000 row, and text file size is 25M
And I monitored log records, log bytes, elapsed time
Result : log records, log bytes, elapsed time(ss)
native 7934, 468212, 1
fomatfile 5041, 297452,
Is this a special case because data size is much small
Or is this truth
Thank you!>
> I tested bulk load.
> I had knowed native option is faster.
> But test resulted that formatfile is faster than native option.
> Test data is 120000 row, and text file size is 25M.
> And I monitored log records, log bytes, elapsed time.
> Result : log records, log bytes, elapsed time(ss).
> native 7934, 468212, 12
> fomatfile 5041, 297452, 9
> Is this a special case because data size is much small?
> Or is this truth?
> Thank you!
>
--
There are always exceptions to a rule. SQL Server documentation says that
native format is the fastest form of data transfer. There is also a table
in SQL Server books online that tells you what format to use on which
circumstances.
Hope this helps,
--
Eric Cárdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.