spaghettidba (4/18/2015)
John Hick-456673 (4/17/2015)
spaghettidba (4/17/2015)
craig 81366 (4/18/2013)
John Hick-456673 (4/18/2013)
I have tested it against large tables (1 billion plus rows) and performance is much better than with dynamic SQL.I'm going to be blunt here.
I find that extremely hard to believe.
+1
Dynamic SQL is difficult to beat in this case.
I would go as far as to say that suggesting this technique is a bad advice.
You are two years behind the eight-ball, there. But, thank you for playing. 😀
You might have missed that your article is featuring on the main page of SQL Server Central.
Still bad advice, even two years later.
That might be - but after the vicious attacks from the first go-round, I am not feeling particularly merciful. Therefore, I presume that you have never written for SCC. I was informed a few weeks ago that the article was to be republished. I braced myself for another round of flames. Surprisingly, there have been only a couple of you who have had the bad grace to treat this as a first publishing - and that as though I am maliciously guiding people astray.
I had hoped that this article, as well as myself, could just disappear and be forgotten.
But, maybe I should embrace triangular joins and cursors - no, wait! NESTED CURSORS with extraneous function calls within! THAT'S MY NEW PARADIGM! RBAR, HERE I COME!
HEY, EVERYBODY! THIS HOW YOU CAN BRING DOWN A SYSTEM! JUST LISTEN TO ME!
Really, is this what you want? Someone writes an article in the spirit of trying to help and the community wants to burn him at the stake? Really? OK, I get it. Bye!
jhick signing out on SQL Sever Central, permanently. I'm done. I used to sign in at least a couple of times a week - but this was the last.
Thanks for all of your USEFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE *%$*^*** COMMENTS