July 1, 2004 at 3:37 pm
I wrote a simple select stored procedure with a where clause pointed to a @parameter - no EXEC, no sp_executesql. In query analyzer it worked. It's great to find a free lunch, but is there a gotcha to not using EXEC or sp_executesql?
July 2, 2004 at 2:54 am
There is no gotcha to not using sp_executesql or exec() afaik.
This is the way to do it, a parameter in a sp.
Imo a sp is more flexibe than using sp_executesql.
/rockmoose
You must unlearn what You have learnt
July 2, 2004 at 3:03 am
I think the usage of EXEC or Sp_execute will improve the performance as the SQL Server dont have to findout the type of Command you are entering
--------------------------------
July 2, 2004 at 3:03 am
I think the usage of EXEC or Sp_execute will improve the performance as the SQL Server dont have to findout the type of Command you are entering
--------------------------------
July 2, 2004 at 3:36 am
EXEC myStoredProcedure @prm1 = 6, @prm2 = 7
So Sql Server has to find out that you are executing a stored procedure ?
EXEC( 'EXEC myStoredProcedure @prm1 = 6, @prm2 = 7' )
EXEC( 'Select rubbish from blabla' )
So now Sql Server doesn't have to figure out what you are executing ?
Ok, if you are using sp_executesql, SQL Server will be able to reuse the execution plans and
might have the same performance as just using a stored procedure.
/rockmoose
You must unlearn what You have learnt
July 6, 2004 at 11:58 am
Thank you. I wanted to be sure before turning these things loose. This proves again that 99% of the time simpler is better.
Performance is not an issue here due to the size of the tables - 2,118 rows max.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply