Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
yosiasz
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
1635 Posts |
 Posted - 2008-04-17 : 15:36:44
|
| GreetingsI am working with replicated data from an old mainframe app which I have no control over, I would haev done it totally differently. Most of the fields are chr(6) with following SQL_Latin1_General_CP437_BIN. But our database's COLLATION is SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS. Therefore the need to use COLLATE syntax. I fear that this is very problematic. Will it affect performance when trying to do joins with the COLLATE syntax? COLLATE works but how efficient is it?Thanks! |
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2008-04-17 : 15:38:06
|
| It's simple to find out. Simply compare the execution plan of the query with and without the COLLATE syntax. Let us know your findings.Tara KizerMicrosoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Serverhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/ |
 |
|
|
spirit1
Cybernetic Yak Master
11752 Posts |
Posted - 2008-04-17 : 15:59:17
|
if there's no upcasting of datatypes i don't think you'll have a serious perf problem.of course as her goddess-ness says  execution plans are the best indicator of performance problems._______________________________________________Causing trouble since 1980blog: http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/mladenpSSMS Add-in that does a few things: www.ssmstoolspack.com |
|
|
|
yosiasz
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
1635 Posts |
Posted - 2008-04-30 : 10:49:11
|
| ok there is a slight performance drag using COLLATE. I have decided to change the one field in our db that we use to join to the replicated database to SQL_Latin1_General_CP437_BIN and create an index on it. Seems like it improved performance on the index seek of the replicated data from 98% to 82 %. I assume this is good performance gain. I have no control of the replicated data.Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collation question