OPTION (RECOMPILE, QUERYTRACEON 8649)

  • Jason-299789 (10/11/2012)


    One last question, was this always the case or is there a case to say that performance enhancements with the query engine over the last few revisions have caused this to blur the lines more than say under SQL 6.5/2000?

    As far as I recall, it's the case in SQL 2000 as well. Was probably different in 6.5, as SQL 7 is when the optimiser was significantly rewritten

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
  • aadharjoshi (10/11/2012)


    GilaMonster, Its extremely necessary to improve query performance..even if it process execution paralleled.

    Then you probably don't want to change to joins, because that will not have the desired effect.

    Please post table definitions, index definitions and execution plan, as per http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
  • GilaMonster (10/11/2012)


    Jason-299789 (10/11/2012)


    One last question, was this always the case or is there a case to say that performance enhancements with the query engine over the last few revisions have caused this to blur the lines more than say under SQL 6.5/2000?

    As far as I recall, it's the case in SQL 2000 as well. Was probably different in 6.5, as SQL 7 is when the optimiser was significantly rewritten

    Thanks Gail, Its nice to get rid of some of these old misconceptions.

    _________________________________________________________________________
    SSC Guide to Posting and Best Practices

Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 17 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply