April 4, 2012 at 4:26 am
Hi All,
Is there any way to store the result into files in Sql server 2005. Or Can I save the some calculated Results in files and later i can use those files for displaying results...
Please give any suggestions on it....
April 4, 2012 at 4:51 am
You could use BCP with xp_cmdshell for instance, but, let me ask you WHY you want to cache results like that.
Do you need a result cache to query later? Why not use a client-side cursor for that? ADO and ADO.NET have built-in support for filters.
-- Gianluca Sartori
April 4, 2012 at 5:11 am
Gianluca Sartori (4/4/2012)
You could use BCP with xp_cmdshell for instance, but, let me ask you WHY you want to cache results like that.Do you need a result cache to query later? Why not use a client-side cursor for that? ADO and ADO.NET have built-in support for filters.
Thanks for giving the reply..
Now I have a report, which displays 6 lacs of records for report. It giving the results with in 1 min 30 sec. But in front end it is taking long time to bind the data.. Now my plan is to save that data into files and later i can use the same data but not from the table, i can fetch that from the files...
April 4, 2012 at 5:18 am
600,000 rows in a report? I feel sorry for the person on whose desk that lands! I think some better options include optimising the query for the reports, making sure you have created (and continue to maintain) good indexes on your tables, and setting up a proper data warehouse solution.
John
April 4, 2012 at 5:20 am
I would call a procedure from the report and let the procedure store the results into a staging table with some sort of id which identifies the call.
Then, I would bind the staging table to the report.
I have used this technique with Crystal Reports sometimes and I must say it worked quite well.
-- Gianluca Sartori
April 4, 2012 at 5:22 am
John Mitchell-245523 (4/4/2012)
600,000 rows in a report? I feel sorry for the person on whose desk that lands! I think some better options include optimising the query for the reports, making sure you have created (and continue to maintain) good indexes on your tables, and setting up a proper data warehouse solution.John
HA! Now I see what "lacs" means!!! Sorry, I'm Italian and I didn't know this term.
Well, it's definitely too much data. Are you sure this is necessary?
-- Gianluca Sartori
April 4, 2012 at 6:00 am
Gianluca Sartori (4/4/2012)
John Mitchell-245523 (4/4/2012)
600,000 rows in a report? I feel sorry for the person on whose desk that lands! I think some better options include optimising the query for the reports, making sure you have created (and continue to maintain) good indexes on your tables, and setting up a proper data warehouse solution.John
HA! Now I see what "lacs" means!!! Sorry, I'm Italian and I didn't know this term.
Well, it's definitely too much data. Are you sure this is necessary?
Yes, It is the Requirement.. we have to show that... some times it is taking 1 min 30 seconds and some times it is taking more than 5 minutes,... so this is the reason i am planning to have those calculated records into files.. and file accessing will be some what faster... in processing bulk data right..?.. Please give some suggestions about to store data in files in sql server 2005...
Thanks,
April 4, 2012 at 7:07 am
Gianluca Sartori (4/4/2012)
I would avoid this approach for many reasons.If you're looking for a results caching solution, take a look at SafePeak.
My suggestion is to speed up the query with appropriate tuning measures.
To display 650000 records in 1 minute 30 seconds..is this procedure is running correctly, because it is having more parameters to filter the data....
Can we do it with in 1 minute, i mean less than 1 minute...
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply