Re: Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls
From: Michael C# (xyz_at_yomomma.com)
Date: 03/01/05
- Next message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Allocating memory"
- Previous message: Geir Holme: "The name of Scheduler 3."
- In reply to: John Smith: "Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:46:38 -0500
Hi John,
I would think the network traffic would be significantly greater when
submiting 10 calls to get 1 record each as opposed to 1 call to get 10
records. That's automatically 10X the client-to-server network traffic.
Constantly opening and closing connections, as well as maintaining
connections that aren't in use, can use up a lot of resources on SQL Server
also. Now whether this should cause problems with a small number of users
is another story... It probably depends on how they're using the server...
Are they running automated reports that are requesting records one at a time
and might include thousands of separate requests? Or maybe they're just
accessing 30 records/hour on average each?
Connection pooling helps, but it can't compensate completely for a design
flaw.
Are you using C#.NET? If so, you might look into ADO.NET. ADO.NET is
designed to handle a lot of the management issues for you.
Thanks,
Mike C.
"John Smith" <js@no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
>
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
>
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
>
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
>
> Thanks!
>
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>
>
- Next message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Allocating memory"
- Previous message: Geir Holme: "The name of Scheduler 3."
- In reply to: John Smith: "Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
