On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 8:22 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Why not use INSERT ... ON CONFLICT instead of MERGE?
>
> >
> > MERGE INTO tab1 AS target
> > USING (VALUES ('5efd4c91-ef93-4477-840c-a723ae212d99', 123,
> > '2024-08-09T11:33:49.402585600Z','2024-08-09T11:33:49.402585600Z')) AS
> > source(id, mid,txn_timestamp, cre_ts)
> > ON target.id <http://target.id> = source.id <http://source.id>
> > WHEN MATCHED THEN
> > UPDATE SET mid = source.mid
> > WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
> > INSERT (id, mid, txn_timestamp, cre_ts)
> > VALUES (source.id <http://source.id>,source.mid,
> > source.txn_timestamp, source.cre_ts);
>
>
>
Actually , as per the business logic , we need to merge on a column which
is not unique or having any unique index on it. It's the leading column of
a composite unique key though. And in such scenarios the "INSERT.... ON
CONFLICT" will give an error. So we are opting for a merge statement here,
which will work fine with the column being having duplicate values in it.
