|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should table variables be changed to work IN-MEMORY exclusively?
21/02/2006 3:14:04 PM
(Total replies: 1)
|
| I like Jeremy's idea.
Initially I used to favour table variables over temp tables in certain circumstances because their name lead me to believe that they were only a memory structure. And when I was under this incorrect assumption I used to target my usage so that any large temporary structures I put in #temp tables and smaller ones I put in @temp tables.
I think the main problem here is one of perception. If MS had called them "temp table pointers" or "temp table mapped variables" then ... |
|
|
|
Re: Should table variables be changed to work IN-MEMORY exclusively?
8/03/2006 10:34:53 AM
(Total replies: 1)
|
| The following is an excerpt from the sql-server-performance.com newsletter which I recieved today. Which from the discussion on this thread is just plain wrong, but explains some of how the incorrect perceptions have been propogated.
<-- SNIP -->
If you need a temporary table in your Transact-SQL code, consider using a table variable instead of creating a conventional temporary table instead. Table variables are created and manipulated in memory instead of the tempdb database, making them ... |
|