"Coaster" <Coaster@Coaster.net> wrote in message
news:%23qBzkhr5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I have a temp table, not a real temp table but a real table that I use as a
>staging area for some calculations. I actually have 3 of them. During the
>calculations the temp table is loaded with up to 1 million records. The
>million records are deleted during iterations of the entire process. I've
>been wondering if its faster to drop the temp tables and recreate them
>versus deleting from.
>
> thanks
>
>
>

"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@IHATESPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:EAD1CD18-303A-4F2B-9FE8-AC958C93FDDF@microsoft.com...
> Why not test both on your end and see which is better?
>
>
> --
>
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
>
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
>
>
> "Coaster" <Coaster@Coaster.net> wrote in message
> news:%23qBzkhr5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>I have a temp table, not a real temp table but a real table that I use as
>>a staging area for some calculations. I actually have 3 of them. During
>>the calculations the temp table is loaded with up to 1 million records.
>>The million records are deleted during iterations of the entire process.
>>I've been wondering if its faster to drop the temp tables and recreate
>>them versus deleting from.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>>
>

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns99986A485467Yazorman@127.0.0.1...
>
> Even better: use TRUNCATE TABLE, which performs the half of DROP TABLE
> that you are interested in. And, yes, it's a lot faster than DELETE,
> since TRUNCATE TABLE is minimally logged.

> I have a temp table, not a real temp table but a real table that I use
> as a staging area for some calculations. I actually have 3 of them.
> During the calculations the temp table is loaded with up to 1 million
> records. The million records are deleted during iterations of the entire
> process. I've been wondering if its faster to drop the temp tables and
> recreate them versus deleting from.

On 25 Aug, 05:00, "AlexS" <salexru200...@SPAMrogers.comPLEASE> wrote:
> Check truncate table"Coaster" <Coas...@Coaster.net> wrote in message
>
> news:%23qBzkhr5HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> >I have a temp table, not a real temp table but a real table that I use as a
> >staging area for some calculations. I actually have 3 of them. During the
> >calculations the temp table is loaded with up to 1 million records. The
> >million records are deleted during iterations of the entire process. I've
> >been wondering if its faster to drop the temp tables and recreate them
> >versus deleting from.
>
> > thanks