Performance was exactly what I was worried about. If I understand it correctly it should be slightly faster for the server to execute a SP named usp_X compared to a SP named sp_X since the server doesn't first have to check if it is a system SP. (now slightly faster might only be a fraction of a fraction of a ms faster but still).
Do you think I will gain performance (in the same way) if I name my SPs spals_X (notice it starts with sp but it doesn't start with sp_)?
Just trying to squeeze out some performance :)
Einar
>Einar,
>
>I think the not using SP_ admonition is one primarily of performance. Which is probably going to be important in your system if you have 5 SPs per table. We use usp_X here.
>
>>Is there a negative side-effect of using the following 3 characters
sp_ in the beginning of my custom SP name? (as long as I am 99.9% sure that the server doesn't have a built-in SP with the same name)
>>
>>I currently use the following naming convention for my SPs: sp_als_[tablename]_[U|I|UI|S|D]
>>
>>I came accross a website that recomended not starting my custom SPs with sp_ (and it referenced BOL, but I couldn't find it in BOL). The website stated that if the SP name started with sp_ the server would always look through the built in SPs before looking through DBO SPs. I guess this could be prevented by always calling the SP using the full name i.e. dbo.sp_als_TblName_S
Semper ubi sub ubi.