Why this is faster?

[Arun Immanuel]

Here are the 2 queries I tested for speed. select replace(convert(nvarchar(10),getdate(),108),':','') from tblName select replace(convert(nvarchar(10),getdate(),108),':','')***1** from tblName The former took 6 seconds and the latter took only 4 seconds. The table tblName has around 5 lakhs of rows. :confused::confused::confused:

Regards, Arun Kumar.A

[Colin Angus Mackay]

Arun.Immanuel wrote:

5 lakhs of rows

Which means?

---

Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Mock Objects, SQL Server CLR Integration, Reporting Services, db4o, Dependency Injection with Spring ... * Reading: Developer Day 5 Never write for other people. Write for yourself, because you have a passion for it. -- Marc Clifton My website

[Rob Graham]

Colin Angus Mackay wrote:

Reporting

I think it means he's of the Indian persuasion.

[Arun Immanuel]

I have 5,00,000 rows in the table tableName

Regards, Arun Kumar.A

[Arun Immanuel]

Yes, You are right.:)

Regards, Arun Kumar.A

[andyharman]

This one creates a column that takes about 13 bytes: select replace(convert(nvarchar(10),getdate(),108),':','') from tblName While this one casts the result into an integer (which takes just 4 bytes): select replace(convert(nvarchar(10),getdate(),108),':','')*1 from tblName The second is probably only faster because SQL Server can store the results in less space (or the data takes less packets to pass across your network.

[Arun Immanuel]

Thank you very much:):):)

Regards, Arun Kumar.A