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:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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:

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.

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 vie
w
> 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 a
t
> 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:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Views require some extra time to look up info in system tables and althoug
h
> 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:
>