December 7, 2009 at 11:37 am
I know NOCOUNT should be set on in Stored Procs for performance reasons. Does this hold true for UDFs as well?
I searched SSC as well as on google and didn't find anything definitive.
Thanks for your assistance!
December 7, 2009 at 11:39 am
For inline table-value UDFs, no (because you can't). For the rest, yes.
Edit: Nope. I was wrong. Can't set it.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 7, 2009 at 11:45 am
Thank you, GSquared.
I should have just tried it myself and seen the error message. I sometimes just make things harder for myself just for fun. 🙂
December 7, 2009 at 12:38 pm
With these settings it is always interesting to see what happens
if you perform "set nocount on" before you create the udf ....
Johan
Learn to play, play to learn !
Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
but keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere :w00t:
- How to post Performance Problems
- How to post data/code to get the best help[/url]
- How to prevent a sore throat after hours of presenting ppt
press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution 😀
Need a bit of Powershell? How about this
Who am I ? Sometimes this is me but most of the time this is me
December 7, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Won't matter. It's a connection property, not an object property.
Since you'll mainly be calling UDFs from within procs, if you set nocount on in the proc, that'll handle it.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply