but would see a benefit from cfqueryparam ?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Philip Arnold
> To: CF-Talk
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 12:25 PM
> Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
>
> > From: Hugo Ahlenius
> >
>
> From: David Fafard
>
> So of I use:
>
> select x,y,z from tbl where id=1
> select x,y,z from tbl where id=2
> select x,y,z from tbl where id=3
>
> where id would be a dynamic variable,
> I would not get any benefit in using cached query
> but would see a benefit from cfqueryparam ?
How many
-
From: Philip Arnold
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
> From: Hugo Ahlenius
>
> Cached queries means storing the whole output query variable
> in the cf server memory. CF does not touch the database. The
> query c
> From: Hugo Ahlenius
>
> Cached queries means storing the whole output query variable
> in the cf server memory. CF does not touch the database. The
> query can not have any dynamic variables (The SQL statement
> has to be the same).
>
> Using cfqueryparam improves the caching on the db serve
David Fafard wrote:
>
> Again.. because one can NOT use cached queries with cfqueryparam
http://www.macromedia.com/go/wish/
> which is more beneficial, cached queries or cfqueryparam ?
Depends on the situation.
> I have always been confused with this distinction.
> Is there any good "rules of
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 17:23
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
|
| Interesting.
|
| Again.. because one can NOT use cached queries with
| cfqueryparam, which is more beneficial, cached queries or
| cfqueryparam ?
|
| I have always been confused with this
--
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
Stored procedures are not cached queries - they are compiled execution plans. The thing that makes the difference is the
databinding. SQL knows what type a variable i
w.grida.no
-
| -Original Message-
| From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 16:35
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
|
| Stored procedures are not cached queries - they are compiled
| execution plans. The thing that makes the
on plan in the cache.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: brobborb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:47 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
But will it help in terms of performance? My understanding is that Stored Procedures are cached queries. But
> From: brobborb
>
> Something like
>
>
>
>
> INSERT INTO testy (name, a, b, c, d, e, f, g) VALUES
> ('#name#', 'other stuff', 'a', 'a', 'a', 'a', 'a', 'a')
>
>
>
>
> The problem is that even though the query goes through and
> the page gets processed, SQL Server only actually accepts
sed, SQL Server only actually accepts 456 rows! So I will try using your syntax :)
- Original Message -
From: Steve Nelson
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
Hmmm, maybe. I haven't used bulk insert in a couple years
ile or anything. Or are you talking about
> something else?
> - Original Message -
> From: Steve Nelson
> To: CF-Talk
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:02 AM
> Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
>
> Did you add the 50,000 cffile writes? Or loop 50,000 times to c
01, 2004 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
Really? There's a limit? What is it? hmmm. Me sets loop to 50,000 :D
it took it! 16203 milliseconds!
however, at 100,000 inserts, it took 57333 milliseconds. Maybe cos mys erver is crapping out. It seems like doi
onday, March 01, 2004 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
Did you add the 50,000 cffile writes? Or loop 50,000 times to create the
data in one variable, then do a single cffile write? Don't you have to
write to a file first, then perform the bulk insert on the file? I
imagine that
To: CF-Talk
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:43 AM
> Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
>
> Just out of pure curiosity, can you try reducing the number of
> records
> until the processing time is about equivalent? Maybe we can figure
> out a
> very simple rule of thum
Hey question. When you do an INSERT statement, does SQL still return a resultset? Or does that only happen with SELECT statements?
- Original Message -
From: Philip Arnold
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
> From: Robert
In theory an SP should be faster no matter...
_
From: brobborb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 March 2004 13:47
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
But will it help in terms of performance? My understanding is that Stored
Procedures are cached queries. But if the query
:43 AM
Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
Just out of pure curiosity, can you try reducing the number of records
until the processing time is about equivalent? Maybe we can figure out a
very simple rule of thumb, like "If there are more than 100 records, use
bulk insert, otherwise
tored procedure for this part!!
- Original Message -
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:34 AM
Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
No, thats the whole point of a stored procedure...you pass it in variables
and it does the proce
o 10
> times the amount of row inserts.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Steve Nelson
> To: CF-Talk
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:00 AM
> Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
>
> I've often wonder at what point Bulk Insert becomes an advantage.
0,000 should be more than enuff!
- Original Message -
From: Philip Arnold
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:12 AM
Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
> From: brobborb
>
> Hey guys, let's say I have to insert like 5,000 rows of data
> with the c
No, thats the whole point of a stored procedure...you pass it in variables
and it does the processing
_
From: brobborb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 March 2004 13:32
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
Here's what i thought about stored procedure. I thought
True, true.also Bulk Inserts are not entered into the Transaction
Logif on MSSQL
_
From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 March 2004 13:28
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
> From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
>
> Stored Procedure : BU
-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: SQL Multiple Inserts
I've often wonder at what point Bulk Insert becomes an advantage. I
imagine the drawback with bulk insert is that it has to read an actual
file versus read from ram. It seems that for a small number of reco
entially a different query every time.
Is this correct? My queries are like the latter.
- Original Message -
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:14 AM
Subject: RE: SQL Multiple Inserts
Stored Procedure : BULK INSERT.
_
> From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
>
> Stored Procedure : BULK INSERT.
This really depends - if you're inserting data from another table, then
it's a lot easier to do a INSERT INTO SELECT FROM
Also, if he's running Access *spit* then doing SPs is impossible
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[
> From: brobborb
>
> Hey guys, let's say I have to insert like 5,000 rows of data
> with the click of a button in my app. Would it be alot
> faster to insert all 5,000 in one CFQuery with multiple
> inserts? Right now it is just one query looped 5,000 times.
>
> Also are there any drawbacks
I've often wonder at what point Bulk Insert becomes an advantage. I
imagine the drawback with bulk insert is that it has to read an actual
file versus read from ram. It seems that for a small number of records a
regular insert would be faster.
Has anyone done any comparisons between bulk insert ve
Stored Procedure : BULK INSERT.
_
From: brobborb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 March 2004 12:16
To: CF-Talk
Subject: SOT: SQL Multiple Inserts
Hey guys, let's say I have to insert like 5,000 rows of data with the click
of a button in my app. Would it be alot faster to insert al
29 matches
Mail list logo
