ChrisM@Work (2/5/2013)
Steven Willis (2/5/2013)
Just a generic observation...If this function is taking two hours to run--even with all of the cursors and subcursors--then you are probably accessing a LOT of data. I don't think a function is even appropriate. Is this being called by another procedure or query? If so the issues raised are multiplied by how many times the function itself is being called.
You should write a procedure instead. ..
Not necessarily. A properly written iTVF inlines like a view. This function is just a 4-table query with a few sums in it. I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be written as an iTVF regardless of how many rows the base tables contain.
Can't argue with that. Frankly, I didn't even look at the code in detail because it was late and 600 lines of cursors had me overwhelmed. :crazy:
If all of that code boils down to 4-tables then perhaps an iTVF would work fine--though I'm astonished really that such a case could wind up looking like the code that was posted. It would also validate the main point of my post in which I tried to show the OP a couple of pseudo-code examples of using JOINS rather than cursors.