unknown
3/1/2008 9:07:00 PM
I guess I should add to my answer a little more also... we are doing
datatable.load on some smaller tables that don't take up much memory and
need to be databound... we do the reader with large data sets that we need
to perform things on that can not be done on the server or we are working in
T-SQL CLR proc's to work with which we process them row by row... we have
some logic that doesnt like to work well with sets and needs to be processed
sequentually and we want to stay far away from cursors so readers seemed the
best solution
"William Vaughn" <billvaNoSPAM@betav.com> wrote in message
news:328B9B58-34FD-42E7-8567-858A1D1DFC15@microsoft.com...
> Yea, a LOT slower (by name). Ah, my questions are:
>
> 1) Why aren't you using the new DataTable.Load method?
> 2) Why are you bringing 20,000 rows to the client? Can't you do the work
> on the server?
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________________________
> William R. Vaughn
> President and Founder Beta V Corporation
> Author, Mentor, Dad, Grandpa
> Microsoft MVP
> (425) 556-9205 (Pacific time)
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________
> "Smokey Grindel" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O9tlkwxeIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If I am doing a very large loop in a data reader say 20,000 rows being
>> read in... now I need to read data so I am doing the
>> reader.Get[Type](reader.GetOrdinal("[columnname]"))... which seems like
>> it'd be slow doing that x number of times per row... is it better to use
>> the ordinal by itself? does looking up an ordinal have any major
>> performance impact? should I look them up once and cache them in
>> variables? what do you guys thinks? thanks!
>>
>