Philip,
as Paul stated, often in SQL you'll have to resort to using cursors to
perform operations on a recordset on a per row basis. If you can avoid them
do, they really are costly in performance terms
Quote from the Wrox Professional SQL Server 7 programming book by Robert
Viera:
"Cursors
worse negative performance impact [but] Cursors are going to be the answer
anytime a solution must be done on a row-by-row basis."
you can often use a series of set operations against temp tables instead
of server side cursors or just plain sql if you're joe celko (or maybe tom
potts who
OK, here's a full description of what I want to accomplish and some
background
We are working for a client who does Conferences - each conference has a
mini-site which has pages describing it and central "How to get there" type
pages
There is one core site which contains the general pages,
Oops, one thing to complicate matters - the primary key on the tables aren't
Identities
OK, here's a full description of what I want to accomplish and some
background
We are working for a client who does Conferences - each conference has a
mini-site which has pages describing it and central
Paul said:
sp_executesql will gain you something in terms of optimization, etc. but
this isn't the kind of thing that ought to be in an sp (unless you're doing
this for security or management reasons)
Why not? I've been taught by our database folks that the more stuff we can
move into the
: Deanna L. Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:53 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures - Am I going insane?
Paul said:
sp_executesql will gain you something in terms of optimization, etc. but
this isn't the kind of thing that ought to be in an sp (unless yo
- Original Message -
From: "Deanna L. Schneider" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "CF-Talk" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures - Am I going insane?
Paul said:
sp_executesql will gain you something in terms
Dave medinets has some stored proc's that
use dynamic table names. Props to him ;)
Check this out.. it aint the prettiest code in the
world but it is possible.
http://medinets.onproject.com/ntm/
Jeremy Allen
elliptIQ Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Philip Arnold - ASP [mailto:[EMAIL
Why not? I've been taught by our database folks that the more stuff we can
why not? sp's aren't really meant for dynamc sql. if i had two logic
branches in an sp, these would become 2 separate sp. unless
security/management were the main issues.
move into the database, the better - that cf is
Consider the following situation:
A complex query that is broken down to mutiple queries that require at least
one temporary table. If these queries are called from a SP then the
temporary table(s) exist only for the duration of that SP.
The other way of course is to drop the temp table(s) at
Is it possible in a SQL Server Stored Procedure to have
dynamic table names?
I'm currently trying to;
Create Procedure update_pages (@tablename varchar(255),
@rowlist varchar(255))
as
begin
update [@tablename] inner join Central_Pages on
[@tablename].ID=Central_Pages.ID
While I'm on the SP subject - something I've never had to do inside one is
loop over a select and do something on the result... is this possible?
you do this with server-side cursors, which should be avoided if
at all possible. what are you trying to do?
Typically, when you're building SQL on the fly, you'll have to build a
string, then use EXECUTE (in SQL 6.5) or sp_executesql (in SQL 7 or 2000)
to
execute the string.
sp_executesql will gain you something in terms of optimization, etc. but
this isn't the kind of thing that ought to be in an
13 matches
Mail list logo
