Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
amandl
Starting Member
3 Posts |
 Posted - 2015-01-05 : 06:54:49
|
| Hi,we have implemented a stored procedure which does a lot of numbercrunching (lots of selects in Loops, some updates in loops and so on)the stored procedure called directly via the SQL Server console takes 5 Minutes to runthe same stored procedure called via an insert trigger in a queue table takes 2 seconds to run?!any ideas why? We are thinking of a different transaction concept - that in the trigger all is being done in memory and flushed in one rush... or are we wrong?is it a DB Design issu? What can be done, that the stored Proc called directly has the same performance?thx |
|
|
gbritton
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2780 Posts |
Posted - 2015-01-05 : 08:38:35
|
| What can be done? Try to eliminate the loops you speak of. Use set-based logic instead. Beyond that, you will need to post some code so we can take a look at it. |
 |
|
|
amandl
Starting Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 2015-01-05 : 09:08:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by gbritton
What can be done? Try to eliminate the loops you speak of. Use set-based logic instead. Beyond that, you will need to post some code so we can take a look at it.
hi - no we are using the same stored proc - either called within an insert trigger - takes 2 seconds - or called directly - takes some minutes! - so that's what I am not understanding... |
|
|
|
amandl
Starting Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 2015-01-05 : 09:18:42
|
| so the solution is: putting a transaction arround the stored procedure - than it has the same speed... |
|
|
|
gbritton
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2780 Posts |
Posted - 2015-01-05 : 09:25:58
|
| Maybe. You haven't posted any code and your description has no details for anyone to work with. We can't confirm or refute your hypothesis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Question