How many times did you write a SQL to save a row without knowing whether the same primary key already exists or not? You just get an object in your data access layer and you want to save all fields into the database.

But there is no SAVE statement in SQL, so effectively you need to come up with your implementation of "INSERT or UPDATE" command.


Let's take a concrete example. You have a person object with just 3 fields, here is the type definition:

public class Person
    public Guid Id { get; set; }
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public string Email { get; set; }

Persons are entities, so we chose a GUID for the primary key column. We always generate the unique identifier at client side and just want to save the Person.

Typical Solutions

The typical T-SQL developer's toolbox contains SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE statements. DELETE is of no use here, but the combination of the other three can be employed to complete the task. The most straightforward option is

  INSERT Person (Id, Name, Email) VALUES (@Id, @Name, @Email)
  UPDATE Person SET Name = @Name AND Email = @Email WHERE Id = @Id

It's 4 lines of code instead of one, but it works. Being more fancy, we can reduce the code to 3 lines of code:

UPDATE Person SET Name = @Name AND Email = @Email WHERE Id = @Id
  INSERT Person (Id, Name, Email) VALUES (@Id, @Name, @Email)

It should also perform faster if you update more often then insert.

Solved? Not completely...

The problem is that sometimes it doesn't work. By default, SELECT doesn't lock the table, so in race condition scenario there may be another thread which would insert another row with same Id between the execution of two statements (or delete the existing row for that matter). Ouch.

If you think that's just a theoretical problem... Well, it might be for our tiny shiny Person table, but it will happen for the tables of decent sizes with complex update patterns.


What do we do when the execution of two statements can cause race conditions with unpredictable results? We use transactions! So, start a transaction before the statement, then lock the table in SELECT and commit after all is done. It works, but quite some downsides again:

  • Lots of boilerplate code
  • Easy to make a mistake (Which lock do we need? updlock? holdlock? tablockx?)
  • You might get into a deadlock, so need to handle it gracefully


Starting with SQL Server 2008, Microsoft introduced the MERGE statement. Generally, it's quite powerful and can be used to save all the different rows of a source table into a target table. But we can also use it for our simple task of saving a person.

MERGE is just one statement, so it's atomic and consistent. It performs very well. But the syntax is... oh my god, it's horrible. Your eyes might bleed:

MERGE Person AS target
USING (SELECT @Id, @Name, @Email) AS source (Id, Name, Email)
   ON (target.Id = source.Id)
      UPDATE SET Name = source.Name, Email = source.Email
      INSERT (Id, Name, Email) VALUES (source.Id, source.Name, source.Email)

Yes, we repeat the name of each column 6 times. And we say source 7 times. And you can imagine how the MERGE of a table with 50 columns would look like. And how painful it is to add a new column to an existing statement written 2 years ago.

By the way, the deadlocks are still possible with MERGE statement, so you need to handle them properly.

So the developers, even the ones who know about the MERGE, usually choose to use the good old CRUD combination. But when isn't the syntax a problem?

Generate It!

More and more developers shift from writing the stored procedures to using ORMs. With full-blown ORMs you don't need to care about particular SQL statements, but you get a bunch of other problems related to Object-relational impedance mismatch.

One possible approach is to use a mini-ORM, for instance Dapper. You do your work in your favourite general-purpose language, but stay "close to the metal", or rather to SQL engine statements.

Here is how I invoke a MERGE statement for a Person object (given a connection from the pool):

var person = new Person(...);
DapperAdapter.Merge(connection, person);

Voila! The implementation of generic Merge method takes care of the syntax complications. Write once, use everywhere:

public void Merge<TEntity>(IDbConnection dbConnection, TEntity entity) where TEntity : class
    var props = entity.GetType().GetProperties().Select(p => p.Name).ToList();
    var names = string.Join(", ", props);
    var values = string.Join(", ", props.Select(n => "@" + n));
    var updates = string.Join(", ", props.Select(n => $"{n} = @{n}"));
        $@"MERGE {entity.GetType().Name} as target
          USING (VALUES({values}))
          AS SOURCE ({names})
          ON target.Id = @Id
          WHEN matched THEN
            UPDATE SET {updates}
          WHEN not matched THEN
            INSERT({names}) VALUES({values});",

Of course, it will only work if you use the convention of naming the Person properties after the database table. In most cases, there will be a domain class Person and a property bag class PersonRow, so you'll have to do the mapping between them. But that might be easier than writing T-SQL code.


Don't let the bulky syntax scare you away from the MERGE T-SQL statement. Extend your toolbox, and use the tools wisely.