Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 744375
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T08:58:16+00:00 2026-05-14T08:58:16+00:00

I have a stored procedure inside which I create a temporary table that typically

  • 0

I have a stored procedure inside which I create a temporary table that typically contains between 1 and 10 rows. This table is truncated and filled many times during the stored procedure. It is truncated as this is faster than delete.
Do I get any performance increase by replacing this temporary table with a table variable when I suffer a penalty for using delete (truncate does not work on table variables)

Whilst table variables are mainly in memory and are generally faster than temp tables do I loose any benefit by having to delete rather than truncate?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T08:58:16+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 8:58 am

    Running the followign to scripts, it would seem that the Table Variable is the better option

    CREATE TABLE #Temp(
            ID INT
    )
    
    DECLARE @Int INT,
            @InnerInt INT
    SELECT  @Int = 1,
            @InnerInt = 1
    
    WHILE @Int < 50000
    BEGIN
        WHILE @InnerInt < 10
        BEGIN
            INSERT INTO #Temp SELECT @InnerInt
            SET @InnerInt = @InnerInt + 1
        END
        SELECT @Int = @Int + 1,
                @InnerInt = 1
        TRUNCATE TABLE #Temp
    END
    
    DROP TABLE #TEMP
    
    GO
    
    DECLARE @Temp TABLE(
            ID INT
    )
    
    DECLARE @Int INT,
            @InnerInt INT
    SELECT  @Int = 1,
            @InnerInt = 1
    
    WHILE @Int < 50000
    BEGIN
        WHILE @InnerInt < 10
        BEGIN
            INSERT INTO @Temp SELECT @InnerInt
            SET @InnerInt = @InnerInt + 1
        END
        SELECT @Int = @Int + 1,
                @InnerInt = 1
        DELETE FROM @Temp
    END
    

    From Sql Profiler

    CPU     Reads   Writes  Duration
    36375     2799937   0       39319
    
    vs
    
    CPU     Reads   Writes  Duration
    14750   1700031 2       17376   
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a stored procedure that looks like: CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.usp_TestFilter @AdditionalFilter BIT =
I have a Stored procedure which schedules a job. This Job takes a lot
I have a strange, sporadic issue. I have stored procedure that returns back 5
I have a stored procedure that consists of a single select query used to
I have a stored procedure that returns multiple tables. How can I execute and
I have a Stored Procedure that rolls-back a series of operations. I want to
I have a stored procedure currently executing a complicated fetch that is frequently timing
I have stored procedure: ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[k_ShoppingCart_DELETE] @cartGUID nvarchar AS DELETE FROM [dbo].[k_ShoppingCart] WHERE
I have a stored procedure in SQL 2005. The Stored Procedure is actually creating
I have a stored procedure with the following header: FUNCTION SaveShipment (p_user_id IN INTEGER,

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.