Comments on: NOCOUNT and User Options http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/turn-off-nocount/ Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:00:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Pythian Group - Blog http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/turn-off-nocount/comment-page-1/#comment-419 Pythian Group - Blog Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:01:17 +0000 http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1267#comment-419 [...] SQLBatman swoops over NOCOUNT and User Options: “How do I disable (NOCOUNT) for only one database on an instance? The answer is you don’t, [...] [...] SQLBatman swoops over NOCOUNT and User Options: “How do I disable (NOCOUNT) for only one database on an instance? The answer is you don’t, [...]

]]> By: Paul Montgomery http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/turn-off-nocount/comment-page-1/#comment-418 Paul Montgomery Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:50:05 +0000 http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1267#comment-418 Wow, the vendor really needs to tighten up their QC. If the product requires a database with some custom settings either ensure your devs are creating the objects from a template that turns these settings on or dump your schema to text and have someone verify that everything conforms to desired settings (the latter would be more time consuming and I feel for that guy). Wow, the vendor really needs to tighten up their QC. If the product requires a database with some custom settings either ensure your devs are creating the objects from a template that turns these settings on or dump your schema to text and have someone verify that everything conforms to desired settings (the latter would be more time consuming and I feel for that guy).

]]> By: SQLBatman http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/turn-off-nocount/comment-page-1/#comment-417 SQLBatman Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:26:00 +0000 http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1267#comment-417 Jeremiah, would you enable all user connections to the instance have SET NOCOUNT ON by default? or would you prefer for people to manage that option themselves? Jeremiah,

would you enable all user connections to the instance have SET NOCOUNT ON by default? or would you prefer for people to manage that option themselves?

]]> By: John http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/turn-off-nocount/comment-page-1/#comment-416 John Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:37:58 +0000 http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1267#comment-416 this bit is the kicker for me: "According to the vendor, this is recommended to help performance and/or avoid issues with stored procedures that forgot to enable the NOCOUNT option" so you are catering for people who FORGOT top enable NOCOUNT where is was required, how about, dont forget??? whats next, automatic 'selects' for those that forgot to select? this bit is the kicker for me:

“According to the vendor, this is recommended to help performance and/or avoid issues with stored procedures that forgot to enable the NOCOUNT option”

so you are catering for people who FORGOT top enable NOCOUNT where is was required, how about, dont forget???

whats next, automatic ‘selects’ for those that forgot to select?

]]> By: Jeremiah Peschka http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/turn-off-nocount/comment-page-1/#comment-415 Jeremiah Peschka Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:29:54 +0000 http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1267#comment-415 The one place where NOCOUNT ON comes in handy is when you're dealing with older data access methods which tend to become very unhappy when they get rowcount messages back from the server. But, if you were dealing with those methods, you'd know all about that pain. If you're using a lot of dynamic SQL, I can definitely see how NOCOUNT ON could definitely improve performance by not sending back 30+ '1 row(s) affected.' messages. The one place where NOCOUNT ON comes in handy is when you’re dealing with older data access methods which tend to become very unhappy when they get rowcount messages back from the server. But, if you were dealing with those methods, you’d know all about that pain. If you’re using a lot of dynamic SQL, I can definitely see how NOCOUNT ON could definitely improve performance by not sending back 30+ ’1 row(s) affected.’ messages.

]]>