Yes, Windows 2008 R2.

I really really thought you were on to something here and installed CU4, but no change.

Argh!

Top wait time is:

REQUEST_FOR_DEADLOCK_SEARCH980404905326617312490532661

Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 (RTM) - 10.50.1600.1 (X64) Apr 2 2010 15:48:46 Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation Standard Edition (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.1...

The larger cursor from the original stored procedure fetches the 450 rows in 171ms with local static. Without local static, I've let it run for as long as half...

Definitely something different in the way my 2008 servers are handling insensitive/temp db vs not. In SQL2K, the larger cursor that runs for 20 min+ when not making a...

Wow, thanks for your efforts in helping me out with this. Greatly appreciated!

Was there a huge time difference in fetching the rows either with the local static or without?...

This is interesting....the original more involved cursor fetches the 450 rows in less than one second if I force it to build in tempdb with insensitive. Without insensitive, it...

Yes, I've tried all of the cursor options to no avail. If you write a simple cursor such as mine in your sql 2008 environment and fetch through it,...

There are certain cases where cursors make a lot of sense, but I would agree never for purposes of returning a single result or a result set. They are...

The stored procedure where this problem initially came to lite has a much more involved declare, and performs about ten pages of logic for each record fetched. I realized...

Also, remember there are only 3500 rows in this table. It takes 14 seconds to fetch the 207 rows for salesman 15. Running the select statement on it's...

Here are the files. I included the plan for the query without the top 1 to show how different the plan is than when top 1 is used. ...

And yes, was able to go to 100.

Yep, did all of that.

What's really perplexing is that a new database containing just one table with just 3500 rows, on a local sql server express instance, exhibits...