performance penalty using views

Is there much of a performance penalty for using views? When I use the view
it takes 42 seconds to return results but when I run the query inside the
view by itself it returns records in 5 to 7 seconds.
Would a stored procedure be better? Would the stored procedure be better at
keeping the execution plan?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.Views require some extra time to look up info in system tables and although
they should offer the same execution time as the statement itself they may
have a slower execution time as a result. Although this may improve if the
execution plan is cached. A stored procedure would likely offer better
execution time over a view.
"Dan D." wrote:
> Is there much of a performance penalty for using views? When I use the view
> it takes 42 seconds to return results but when I run the query inside the
> view by itself it returns records in 5 to 7 seconds.
> Would a stored procedure be better? Would the stored procedure be better at
> keeping the execution plan?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.|||After some more testing, I've discovered that if I delete the view and then
recreate it, I get the same performance from both the view and the raw query.
I guess something got out of sync somewhere.
Thanks,
--
Dan D.
"Francis" wrote:
> Views require some extra time to look up info in system tables and although
> they should offer the same execution time as the statement itself they may
> have a slower execution time as a result. Although this may improve if the
> execution plan is cached. A stored procedure would likely offer better
> execution time over a view.
>
> "Dan D." wrote:
> > Is there much of a performance penalty for using views? When I use the view
> > it takes 42 seconds to return results but when I run the query inside the
> > view by itself it returns records in 5 to 7 seconds.
> >
> > Would a stored procedure be better? Would the stored procedure be better at
> > keeping the execution plan?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Dan D.