Plateforme Level Extreme
Abonnement
Profil corporatif
Produits & Services
Support
Légal
English
SP assistance
Message
Information générale
Forum:
Microsoft SQL Server
Catégorie:
Stored procedures, Triggers, UDFs
Titre:
SP assistance
Versions des environnements
SQL Server:
SQL Server 2000
Divers
Thread ID:
01077667
Message ID:
01077667
Vues:
53
I am in the process of creating a SP. I know what I want to accomplish, but I have atleast 2 ways I can solve the problem.

Problem:
I want to pass a parameter @ID to a SP. @ID is PK in the Master table and the Master table contains a binary field that I want to return. @ID is also FK in the Child table and the Child table also contains a binary field which I want to return for all rows matching FK = @ID (There should be exactly 41 rows matching this criteria). Now here comes the "problem": The total amount of binary data that I want returned is 42,238 bytes (254 + 41*1024).

Solution 1:
I could return a dataset looking something like this:
id    data
---   -----
0     <binary> (254 bytes)
1     <binary> (1024 bytes)
2     <binary> (1024 bytes)
   .
   .
   .
41    <binary> (1024 bytes)
Solution 2:
I could return a dataset looking something like this
master_data          child_data
------------         -----------
<binary> (254 bytes) <image> (41,984 bytes)
I am currently leaning towards using solution #2 since a less data is transfered back to the client.

Are there any other (potentionaly better) solultions that I am missing here?

How would I go about appending binary data to an image field (like I am trying to do in solution #2)?

Thanks,
Einar

UPDATE: After playing around with this a little bit more I found that I can return the following dataset:
data_00               data_01          data_02          ...              data_41
-------               -------          -------                           -------
<binary> (254 bytes)  <binary> (1024)  <binary> (1024)  ...              <binary> (1024)
I originally rejected this solution because I didn't think it was possible (because of the 8000 bytes record size limitation). Any thoughts on the last scenario?
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Suivant
Répondre
Fil
Voir

Click here to load this message in the networking platform