Benchmarks for XML EXPLICIT vs. standard recordset?

Hello all.
I was wondering if anyone had links and/or information regarding SQL Server
2000 performance benchmarks when it comes to using FOR XML EXPLICIT
techniques versus using a standard recordset. I've built a number of stored
procs at work using FOR XML EXPLICIT and it's been a huge time-saver. But
alas, the DBAs are unfamiliar (and thus "uncomfortable") with my use of these
techniques.
The alternative, manually building an XML document from recordsets on the VB.
NET side, seems sloppy and cumbersome to me. I'm hoping I can garner some
ammunition that supports FOR XML EXPLICIT.I haven't seen any performance figures (but you might want to re-post in the
.sqlserver.xml group just to make sure). If I were you, I would run some
load tests on both the XML procedures and equivalent rowset procedures to
show whether or not the XML will cause a performance problem.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Frefaln via SQLMonster.com" <forum@.SQLMonster.com> wrote in message
news:52BBD3DFC1848@.SQLMonster.com...
> Hello all.
> I was wondering if anyone had links and/or information regarding SQL
Server
> 2000 performance benchmarks when it comes to using FOR XML EXPLICIT
> techniques versus using a standard recordset. I've built a number of
stored
> procs at work using FOR XML EXPLICIT and it's been a huge time-saver. But
> alas, the DBAs are unfamiliar (and thus "uncomfortable") with my use of
these
> techniques.
> The alternative, manually building an XML document from recordsets on the
VB.
> NET side, seems sloppy and cumbersome to me. I'm hoping I can garner some
> ammunition that supports FOR XML EXPLICIT.

Benchmarks for XML EXPLICIT vs. standard recordset?

Hello all.
I was wondering if anyone had links and/or information regarding SQL Server
2000 performance benchmarks when it comes to using FOR XML EXPLICIT
techniques versus using a standard recordset. I've built a number of stored
procs at work using FOR XML EXPLICIT and it's been a huge time-saver. But
alas, the DBAs are unfamiliar (and thus "uncomfortable") with my use of these
techniques.
The alternative, manually building an XML document from recordsets on the VB.
NET side, seems sloppy and cumbersome to me. I'm hoping I can garner some
ammunition that supports FOR XML EXPLICIT.
I haven't seen any performance figures (but you might want to re-post in the
..sqlserver.xml group just to make sure). If I were you, I would run some
load tests on both the XML procedures and equivalent rowset procedures to
show whether or not the XML will cause a performance problem.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
"Frefaln via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:52BBD3DFC1848@.droptable.com...
> Hello all.
> I was wondering if anyone had links and/or information regarding SQL
Server
> 2000 performance benchmarks when it comes to using FOR XML EXPLICIT
> techniques versus using a standard recordset. I've built a number of
stored
> procs at work using FOR XML EXPLICIT and it's been a huge time-saver. But
> alas, the DBAs are unfamiliar (and thus "uncomfortable") with my use of
these
> techniques.
> The alternative, manually building an XML document from recordsets on the
VB.
> NET side, seems sloppy and cumbersome to me. I'm hoping I can garner some
> ammunition that supports FOR XML EXPLICIT.

Benchmarks for XML EXPLICIT vs. standard recordset?

Hello all.
I was wondering if anyone had links and/or information regarding SQL Server
2000 performance benchmarks when it comes to using FOR XML EXPLICIT
techniques versus using a standard recordset. I've built a number of stored
procs at work using FOR XML EXPLICIT and it's been a huge time-saver. But
alas, the DBAs are unfamiliar (and thus "uncomfortable") with my use of thes
e
techniques.
The alternative, manually building an XML document from recordsets on the VB
.
NET side, seems sloppy and cumbersome to me. I'm hoping I can garner some
ammunition that supports FOR XML EXPLICIT.I haven't seen any performance figures (but you might want to re-post in the
.sqlserver.xml group just to make sure). If I were you, I would run some
load tests on both the XML procedures and equivalent rowset procedures to
show whether or not the XML will cause a performance problem.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Frefaln via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:52BBD3DFC1848@.droptable.com...
> Hello all.
> I was wondering if anyone had links and/or information regarding SQL
Server
> 2000 performance benchmarks when it comes to using FOR XML EXPLICIT
> techniques versus using a standard recordset. I've built a number of
stored
> procs at work using FOR XML EXPLICIT and it's been a huge time-saver. But
> alas, the DBAs are unfamiliar (and thus "uncomfortable") with my use of
these
> techniques.
> The alternative, manually building an XML document from recordsets on the
VB.
> NET side, seems sloppy and cumbersome to me. I'm hoping I can garner some
> ammunition that supports FOR XML EXPLICIT.

Benchmark of ODBC vs Oracle Net8 for Connectivity

Do any one have any unbiased benchmarks of the performance differences of
connecting an Oracle 9i DB to MS SQL Server 2000 via ODBC vs NET8?
References for any pros and cons.
Any guidance would be appreciated!!!!
Don't think you can really compare the two in terms of
connecting with SQL Server. You need to use ODBC or OLE DB
to connect to an Oracle database. The server needs to have
the Oracle client installed. You don't use just the Oracle
components (such as Net 8) to connect to Oracle but the
Oracle client components are a part of the connectivity when
using ODBC or OLE DB against an Oracle database.
-Sue
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:05:02 -0700, "Mike"
<Mike@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Do any one have any unbiased benchmarks of the performance differences of
>connecting an Oracle 9i DB to MS SQL Server 2000 via ODBC vs NET8?
>References for any pros and cons.
>Any guidance would be appreciated!!!!