Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'user187305'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Sql Server 2000 Stored Procedure Prevent Parallelism or something?

  - by user187305

  I have a huge disgusting stored procedure that wasn't slow a couple months ago, but now is. I barely know what this thing does and I am in no way interested in rewriting it. I do know that if I take the body of the stored procedure and then declare/set the values of the parameters and run it in query analyzer that it runs more than 20x faster. From the internet, I've read that this is probably due to a bad cached query plan. So, I've tried running the sp with "WITH RECOMPILE" after the EXEC and I've also tried putting the "WITH RECOMPLE" inside the sp, but neither of those helped even a little bit. When I look at the execution plan of the sp vs the query, the biggest difference is that the sp has "Parallelism" operations all over the place and the query doesn't have any. Can this be the cause of the difference in speeds? Thank you, any ideas would be great... I'm stuck.

  Read the article

• Is it bad practice to assign a css class for the sole purpose of finding it with jQuery?

  - by user187305

  I'm using ASP.NET, not the newest one with that clientIdMode stuff. So, the control ids are generated and funky. There are lots of ways of passing ids around, but lately I've been assigning a 'fake' css class to the control I'm interested in. Then in a js file I use jQuery to find the control. Is this bad practice? It seems a lot like the ajaxControlToolkit's behaviorId to me... Is the behaviorId bad practice as well?

  Read the article

• Sql Server 2000 Stored Procedure Prevents Parallelism or something?

  - by user187305

  I have a huge disgusting stored procedure that wasn't slow a couple months ago, but now is. I barely know what this thing does and I am in no way interested in rewriting it. I do know that if I take the body of the stored procedure and then declare/set the values of the parameters and run it in query analyzer that it runs more than 20x faster. From the internet, I've read that this is probably due to a bad cached query plan. So, I've tried running the sp with "WITH RECOMPILE" after the EXEC and I've also tried putting the "WITH RECOMPLE" inside the sp, but neither of those helped even a little bit. When I look at the execution plan of the sp vs the query, the biggest difference is that the sp has "Parallelism" operations all over the place and the query doesn't have any. Can this be the cause of the difference in speeds? Thank you, any ideas would be great... I'm stuck.

  Read the article

1