http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/ Business Intelligence, Data Warehousing, SQL, Visual FoxPro. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:00:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/#comment-27 Anonymous Tue, 29 May 2007 19:38:14 +0000 http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/#comment-27 I am sorry, but I just don't see why anyone would do a loop with an insert as compared to a select from x into y where z. The select has to be faster. I am sorry, but I just don’t see why anyone would do a loop with an insert as compared to a select from x into y where z. The select has to be faster.

]]> http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/#comment-26 Tod McKenna Mon, 14 May 2007 16:11:45 +0000 http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/#comment-26 Hello anonymous, and thanks for the feedback! Certainly NOFILTER in the SQL will make some difference and I'll add that to my next tests. The second suggestion is already accounted for in the examples (tried with and without the ORDER clause, and with and without the index). Unless I am misunderstanding? Hello anonymous, and thanks for the feedback! Certainly NOFILTER in the SQL will make some difference and I’ll add that to my next tests. The second suggestion is already accounted for in the examples (tried with and without the ORDER clause, and with and without the index). Unless I am misunderstanding?

]]> http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/#comment-25 Anonymous Mon, 14 May 2007 13:59:25 +0000 http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/#comment-25 Oh, and having the table ordered by an index can affect SQL performance *negatively*.. try with and without the ORDER clause in the USE statement (the index doesn't have to be active for Rushmore to use it in a SQL query) Oh, and having the table ordered by an index can affect SQL performance *negatively*.. try with and without the ORDER clause in the USE statement (the index doesn’t have to be active for Rushmore to use it in a SQL query)

]]> http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/#comment-24 Anonymous Mon, 14 May 2007 13:57:30 +0000 http://blog.todmeansfox.com/2007/05/10/whats-faster-sql-or-looping-to-return-a-set-of-records/#comment-24 Why not use the NOFILTER clause on your SQL statements to allow the results to be compared? Why not use the NOFILTER clause on your SQL statements to allow the results to be compared?

]]>