I do not think the speed difference would that significant. More would depend on how much I/O has to be done by SQL to retrieve the data. Obviously larger rows will consume more memory and the less that SQL can store in memory for each I/O. Whether this is significant in your case, I don't think so as you are only returning 100 rows.
My emphasis has always been to make it easy on the people to understand. If this causes a resource problem (and is not really stupid coding) than it is cheaper to upgrade the hardware than spend peoples time on optimizing for trivial gains. Ray Thompson Tau Beta Pi (www.tbp.org) The Engineering Honor Society 865-546-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:53 AM To: SQL Subject: speed? Hi, Does the number of columns in a table effect the performance? For example, I want to select 7 fields and 100 rows of a 7 column table with millions of rows. Will that be faster than if I select 7 fields and 100 rows of an 82 column table with millions of rows? So 7 vs. 82 columns. All other factors remain the same. I am using MS SQL Server 2000. I would think it is faster. What do you think? If it is indeed faster, how much faster are we talking about here? double or tripple the speed? Johnny ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:6:2237 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/6 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:6 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.6 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
