SQLServerInsert efficiency (heap table VS clustered index table)

Which of the following is more efficient when SQL Server's Insert operations are performed on heap tables or clustered index tables? Why is it high? Some colleagues have asked me this question before. To ensure the record efficiency of the logstore, I did a simple test. First of all, I should emphasize the following concepts: heap table: for a table without clustered indexes, the IAM page and PFS page are used to determine which page has free space.

Which of the following is more efficient when SQL Server's Insert operations are performed on heap tables or clustered index tables? Why is it high? Some colleagues have asked me this question before. To ensure the record efficiency of the logstore, I did a simple test. First of all, I should emphasize the following concepts: heap table: for a table without clustered indexes, the IAM page and PFS page are used to determine which page has free space.

"Which of the following is more efficient for SQL Server Insert operations in heap tables or clustered index tables? Why is it high ?"

Some colleagues have asked me this question before. To ensure the efficiency of the logstore record, I did a simple test. I should first emphasize the following concepts:

Heap table: A table without clustered indexes. On the Hong Kong server, the IAM page and PFS page are recorded to determine which page has free space.

Clustered index table: A table with clustered indexes. records are maintained in the logical order of the key values on the page where the clustered key values are located.

Demo:

Perform five concurrent threads and website space on the heap table and the clustered table respectively. Each thread is inserted 10000 times in a loop.

1. Heap Table Test

Insert_Test (id int identity, name char (200) go