Oracle: how to UPSERT (update or insert into a table?)

The MERGE statement merges data between two tables. Using DUAL allows us to use this command. Note that this is not protected against concurrent access.

create or replace
procedure ups(xa number)
as
begin
    merge into mergetest m using dual on (a = xa)
         when not matched then insert (a,b) values (xa,1)
             when matched then update set b = b+1;
end ups;
/
drop table mergetest;
create table mergetest(a number, b number);
call ups(10);
call ups(10);
call ups(20);
select * from mergetest;

A                      B
---------------------- ----------------------
10                     2
20                     1

The dual example above which is in PL/SQL was great becuase I wanted to do something similar, but I wanted it client side...so here is the SQL I used to send a similar statement direct from some C#

MERGE INTO Employee USING dual ON ( "id"=2097153 )
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET "last"="smith" , "name"="john"
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT ("id","last","name") 
    VALUES ( 2097153,"smith", "john" )

However from a C# perspective this provide to be slower than doing the update and seeing if the rows affected was 0 and doing the insert if it was.

An alternative to MERGE (the "old fashioned way"):

begin
   insert into t (mykey, mystuff) 
      values ('X', 123);
exception
   when dup_val_on_index then
      update t 
      set    mystuff = 123 
      where  mykey = 'X';
end;   

Another alternative without the exception check:

UPDATE tablename
    SET val1 = in_val1,
        val2 = in_val2
    WHERE val3 = in_val3;

IF ( sql%rowcount = 0 )
    THEN
    INSERT INTO tablename
        VALUES (in_val1, in_val2, in_val3);
END IF;

insert if not exists update:

INSERT INTO mytable (id1, t1) 
  SELECT 11, 'x1' FROM DUAL 
  WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT id1 FROM mytble WHERE id1 = 11); 

UPDATE mytable SET t1 = 'x1' WHERE id1 = 11;

None of the answers given so far is safe in the face of concurrent accesses, as pointed out in Tim Sylvester's comment, and will raise exceptions in case of races. To fix that, the insert/update combo must be wrapped in some kind of loop statement, so that in case of an exception the whole thing is retried.

As an example, here's how Grommit's code can be wrapped in a loop to make it safe when run concurrently:

PROCEDURE MyProc (
 ...
) IS
BEGIN
 LOOP
  BEGIN
    MERGE INTO Employee USING dual ON ( "id"=2097153 )
      WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET "last"="smith" , "name"="john"
      WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT ("id","last","name") 
        VALUES ( 2097153,"smith", "john" );
    EXIT; -- success? -> exit loop
  EXCEPTION
    WHEN NO_DATA_FOUND THEN -- the entry was concurrently deleted
      NULL; -- exception? -> no op, i.e. continue looping
    WHEN DUP_VAL_ON_INDEX THEN -- an entry was concurrently inserted
      NULL; -- exception? -> no op, i.e. continue looping
  END;
 END LOOP;
END; 

N.B. In transaction mode SERIALIZABLE, which I don't recommend btw, you might run into ORA-08177: can't serialize access for this transaction exceptions instead.

I'd like Grommit answer, except it require dupe values. I found solution where it may appear once: http://forums.devshed.com/showpost.php?p=1182653&postcount=2

MERGE INTO KBS.NUFUS_MUHTARLIK B
USING (
    SELECT '028-01' CILT, '25' SAYFA, '6' KUTUK, '46603404838' MERNIS_NO
    FROM DUAL
) E
ON (B.MERNIS_NO = E.MERNIS_NO)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
    UPDATE SET B.CILT = E.CILT, B.SAYFA = E.SAYFA, B.KUTUK = E.KUTUK
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
    INSERT (  CILT,   SAYFA,   KUTUK,   MERNIS_NO)
    VALUES (E.CILT, E.SAYFA, E.KUTUK, E.MERNIS_NO); 

I've been using the first code sample for years. Notice notfound rather than count.

UPDATE tablename SET val1 = in_val1, val2 = in_val2
    WHERE val3 = in_val3;
IF ( sql%notfound ) THEN
    INSERT INTO tablename
        VALUES (in_val1, in_val2, in_val3);
END IF;

The code below is the possibly new and improved code

MERGE INTO tablename USING dual ON ( val3 = in_val3 )
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET val1 = in_val1, val2 = in_val2
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT 
    VALUES (in_val1, in_val2, in_val3)

In the first example the update does an index lookup. It has to, in order to update the right row. Oracle opens an implicit cursor, and we use it to wrap a corresponding insert so we know that the insert will only happen when the key does not exist. But the insert is an independent command and it has to do a second lookup. I don't know the inner workings of the merge command but since the command is a single unit, Oracle could execute the correct insert or update with a single index lookup.

I think merge is better when you do have some processing to be done that means taking data from some tables and updating a table, possibly inserting or deleting rows. But for the single row case, you may consider the first case since the syntax is more common.

A note regarding the two solutions that suggest:

1) Insert, if exception then update,

or

2) Update, if sql%rowcount = 0 then insert

The question of whether to insert or update first is also application dependent. Are you expecting more inserts or more updates? The one that is most likely to succeed should go first.

If you pick the wrong one you will get a bunch of unnecessary index reads. Not a huge deal but still something to consider.

Try this,

insert into b_building_property (
  select
    'AREA_IN_COMMON_USE_DOUBLE','Area in Common Use','DOUBLE', null, 9000, 9
  from dual
)
minus
(
  select * from b_building_property where id = 9
)
;

From http://www.praetoriate.com/oracle_tips_upserts.htm:

"In Oracle9i, an UPSERT can accomplish this task in a single statement:"

INSERT
FIRST WHEN
   credit_limit >=100000
THEN INTO
   rich_customers
VALUES(cust_id,cust_credit_limit)
   INTO customers
ELSE
   INTO customers SELECT * FROM new_customers;