Temp table performance or explicitly defined table

• Studdy05

  Ten Centuries

  Points: 1375

  More actions

  July 18, 2007 at 9:17 am

  #173848

  The article below and a follow up post about it kind of go to the heart of the question I have. From a performance stance, is it better to create a temp table in memory on the fly or to have a static table to hit when using stored procedures? Thanks for any feedback. Studdy    http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/RDyess/temptabl.asp Posted 6/2/2006 8:30:00 AM
  Valued Member Over 50 Posts Group: General Forum Members Posts: #54 Currently: Offline	I have a related question: In a stored procedure, is it better to create and later drop a "normal" table, instead of using a temp table? -- Stephen Cook

• noeld

  SSC Guru

  Points: 96590

  More actions

  July 18, 2007 at 10:48 am

  #720444

  If you are planning to drop the table used in a stored procedure temp tables are your friend

  
  * Noel

• Sugesh Kumar

  One Orange Chip

  Points: 27311

  More actions

  July 19, 2007 at 6:15 am

  #720704

  Yes temp table. But suggest to properly index them on creation so that they does not hit your query performance.

  Cheers,
  Sugeshkumar Rajendran
  SQL Server MVP
  http://sugeshkr.blogspot.com