﻿<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>SQLServerCentral / Administering / SQL Server 2005  / Lazy Spool - How can i improve/avoid this? / Latest Posts</title><generator>InstantForum.NET v2.9.0</generator><description>SQLServerCentral</description><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/</link><webMaster>notifications@sqlservercentral.com</webMaster><lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 20:10:36 GMT</lastBuildDate><ttl>20</ttl><item><title>RE: Lazy Spool - How can i improve/avoid this?</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1052626-146-1.aspx</link><description>Query, table definitions, index definitions and execution plan please.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:33:40 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>GilaMonster</dc:creator></item><item><title>RE: Lazy Spool - How can i improve/avoid this?</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1052626-146-1.aspx</link><description>Check if you have appropriate indexes.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:57:37 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>jswong05</dc:creator></item><item><title>Lazy Spool - How can i improve/avoid this?</title><link>http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1052626-146-1.aspx</link><description>About 75 percent of cost is being used by "Table Spool(Lazy Spool)" in the execution plan. The inputs on this operator are from an clustered index scan(cost is 0%) and a index seek(cost is 0%) from the same table with actual rows return 0 for each. I did do  some research on lazy spool and seems like it is creating a temp table on temp db but why is the cost 75% when 0 records are fed as inputs?</description><pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:19:19 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>curious_sqldba</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>