November 11, 2011 at 7:44 am
Dev (11/11/2011)
If you don't specify ORDER BY with TOP , the resultset order would be uncertain (random) ONLY.
My fav signature from Lowell =>
Lowell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--There is no spoon, and there's no default ORDER BY in sql server either.
November 11, 2011 at 7:47 am
Based on your extensive testing of this case?
It's obvious that we will save processing time that SQL Server will take for string functions.
November 11, 2011 at 7:49 am
Ninja's_RGR'us (11/11/2011)
Dev (11/11/2011)
If you don't specify ORDER BY with TOP , the resultset order would be uncertain (random) ONLY.My fav signature from Lowell =>
Lowell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--There is no spoon, and there's no default ORDER BY in sql server either.
In fact, I like it too.
November 11, 2011 at 7:52 am
Add this code just before the first CTE in my code.
--Quick test to see how long this runs with 100K rows
INSERT INTO @Table (URL)
SELECT TOP 99990 URL FROM @Table CROSS JOIN sys.all_columns C1 CROSS JOIN sys.all_columns C2
The WHOLE batch, including inserting 100K rows, runs in less than 1 sec on our test server (1 core, 3 gb ram).
I think this is decent enough!
It could be better but it adds a whole hell of a lot of complexity in the mix depending on the solution chosen.
Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply