|
|
Posted by Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) on 11/02/05 15:39
"Martijn Tonies" <m.tonies@upscene-removethis.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:11mhdiekuhe26e9@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> In SQL 2005, there is no better support in T-SQL, but you can call a
> CLR
> > >> routine that uses the RegEx classes in .Net.
> > >
> > > I guess for SQL 2000, you could use a non-COM library as an "extended
> > > procedure"?
> >
> > But performance would be awful and the code would be messy.
>
> I've never written any extended procedures, so perhaps you could
> explain why this would give awful performance?
>
> I imagine the call could be as:
>
> select ...
> from ...
> where myregexp_match(mycolumn, myexpression, myvalue)
>
> Why would this be any slower than COM or .NET? Isn't this partly
> what extended procedures were meant for?
>
I'm guessing the main reason is that in SQL 2000, it executes outside of SQL
Server, which means for every call there's delay as it has to call out of
its address space. SQL 2005 CLR code executes within the same memory space
as SQL Server.
>
> --
> With regards,
>
> Martijn Tonies
> Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
> Server
> Upscene Productions
> http://www.upscene.com
> Database development questions? Check the forum!
> http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|