A data analyst runs the following command: INSERT INTO stakeholders.suppliers TABLE stakeholders.new_suppliers; What is the result of running this command?

Question

Options

• AThe suppliers table now contains both the data it had before the command was run and the data
• BThe command fails because it is written incorrectly.
• CThe suppliers table now contains both the data it had before the command was run and the data
• DThe suppliers table now contains the data from the new suppliers table, and the new suppliers
• EThe suppliers table now contains only the data from the new suppliers table.

• A
  10% (2)
• C
  71% (15)
• D
  5% (1)
• E
  14% (3)

Explanation

Option C is correct because INSERT INTO ... TABLE ... is valid BigQuery SQL syntax that appends all rows from new_suppliers into suppliers - the original rows in suppliers are preserved, and the new rows are added alongside them.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A - though truncated in the question, A likely contains an inaccuracy about what happens to one of the tables (possibly claiming new_suppliers is deleted or altered), which INSERT INTO does not do.
• B - the command is syntactically valid in BigQuery; TABLE source_table is an accepted shorthand for SELECT * FROM source_table in an INSERT statement.
• D - INSERT INTO does not affect the source table (new_suppliers) in any way; it remains unchanged after the operation.
• E - INSERT INTO never truncates the destination table; it only adds rows. A TRUNCATE or CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE would be needed to replace existing data.

Memory tip: Think of INSERT INTO as a funnel - data only flows in, nothing gets removed. If you want to replace data, you need an explicit DELETE/TRUNCATE first. The TABLE keyword in BigQuery is simply shorthand for SELECT * FROM, so INSERT INTO a TABLE b = INSERT INTO a SELECT * FROM b.

No community discussion yet for this question.