SQLSERVER2008中CTE的Split與CLR的機能比擬。本站提示廣大學習愛好者：（SQLSERVER2008中CTE的Split與CLR的機能比擬）文章只能為提供參考，不一定能成為您想要的結果。以下是SQLSERVER2008中CTE的Split與CLR的機能比擬正文
我們新建一個DataBase project，然後樹立一個UserDefinedFunctions,Code像如許:
1: /// <summary>
/// SQLs the array.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="str">The STR.</param>
/// <param name="delimiter">The delimiter.</param>
/// <returns></returns>
/// 1/8/2010 2:41 PM author: v-pliu
[SqlFunction(Name = "CLR_Split",
FillRowMethodName = "FillRow",
TableDefinition = "id nvarchar(10)")]
public static IEnumerable SqlArray(SqlString str, SqlChars delimiter)
{
if (delimiter.Length == 0)
return new string[1] { str.Value };
return str.Value.Split(delimiter[0]);
}
/// <summary>
/// Fills the row.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="row">The row.</param>
/// <param name="str">The STR.</param>
/// 1/8/2010 2:41 PM author: v-pliu
public static void FillRow(object row, out SqlString str)
{
str = new SqlString((string)row);
}
然後Bulid,Deploy一切OK後，在SSMS中履行以下測試T-sql:
DECLARE @array VARCHAR(max)
SET @array = '39,15,93,68,64,43,90,58,39,9,26,26,89,47,91,57,98,16,55,9,63,29,69,16,41,76,34,60,68,64,61,53,32,30,11,72,57,63,36,43,22,14,60,38,24,5,66,26,26,21,22,99,55,18,7,10,46,76,27,88,9,29,89,75,48,72,94,59,35,19,0,35,79,11,87,49,68,30,91,35,9,7,34,47,41,61,98,13,22,1,26,80,35,48,34,92,24,85,90,51' SELECT id FROM dbo.CLR_Split(@array,',')
我們來看它的Client Statistic:
接著我們履行測試T-sql應用雷同的array:
DECLARE @array VARCHAR(max)
SET @array = '39,15,93,68,64,43,90,58,39,9,26,26,89,47,91,57,98,16,55,9,63,29,69,16,41,76,34,60,68,64,61,53,32,30,11,72,57,63,36,43,22,14,60,38,24,5,66,26,26,21,22,99,55,18,7,10,46,76,27,88,9,29,89,75,48,72,94,59,35,19,0,35,79,11,87,49,68,30,91,35,9,7,34,47,41,61,98,13,22,1,26,80,35,48,34,92,24,85,90,51'
SELECT item FROM strToTable(@array,',')
CTE完成的Split function的Client statistic:
經由過程比較，你可以發明CLR的performance略高於CTE方法，緣由在於CLR方法有Cache功效，而且把一個龐雜的運算放到法式裡比DataBase裡加倍高效。
您還可以參考：
Split string in SQL Server 2005+ CLR vs. T-SQL
Author:Petter Liu
