>> I believe if you check the documentation, INSERT - SQL does
>> momentarily lock the table header in order to update the record count
>> contained in the header. But you are right, INSERT INTO is much superior to
>> APPEND BLANK.
>
>I reckon that indexes make the difference. Appending a blank record
>writes a blank entry into all the index tags it has, then replacing the
>values replaces the tag values as well, moving them down the binary tree
>and probably causing some block splitting every once in a while.
>Inserting a record puts its tag values right down to where they belong,
>in only one move. I've measured inserting vs appending when first I saw
>a .cdx index, and ratio is about 1 to 2. Never tried without indexes,
>but 1 to 1.4 is my first guess.
>
>BTW, isn't it more proper English to write "indices" instead of
>"indexes"? I mean, we do say "data" and don't say "datums". I did learn
>it some... wow, thirty years ago, and the professor said that English
>keeps Latin plurals.

"Indices" is the plural of the word "index", but, among programmers, (many of whom, in the U.S., have little respect for the language anyway) "indexes" has largely replaced it. I think "indices" is often understood to mean the plural of the individual numbers in an index (not usually discussed in places like this), and "indexes" the plural of a whole index.

Your professor no doubt taught you many things many of us take for granted or just never knew.