|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 10/10/05 00:42
laurenq uantrell (laurenquantrell@hotmail.com) writes:
> Oops. Yes, I meant columns!
>
> Thanks for that.
>
> Smewhere I thought I read that having a TimeStamp column would speed up
> UPDATE activities on rows.
As Trevor said - you don't have to check all columns to check for
concurrent updates, so the WHERE clauses of your updates are slightly
faster.
But as Celko pointed out, eight bytes more means bigger table, and degrades
performance.
I would say that timestamp is mainly a booster for development, as it
makes checks for concurrent updates easier to implement.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|