<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Conor vs. SQL</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/default.aspx</link><description>Conor Cunningham's blog on SQL Server, data-driven applications, and pretty much whatever other random stuff he decides to post.</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>Loading Data into SQL</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2010/02/05/loading-data-into-sql.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:38:05 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9958793</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9958793.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9958793</wfw:commentRss><description>(I didn’t write this, so no Conor vs. today, folks :) &amp;#160; http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd425070.aspx This is a good read on the various ways to load lots of data into SQL Server.&amp;#160; Enjoy! &amp;#160; Conor...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2010/02/05/loading-data-into-sql.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9958793" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. Data Warehouses (an introduction)</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2010/01/29/conor-vs-data-warehouses-an-introduction.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:36:15 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9955545</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9955545.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9955545</wfw:commentRss><description>I received this question from an internal (as in within Microsoft but not in the SQL Server team) user of SQL Server.&amp;#160; The basic question has to do with how you set up a data warehouse and whether one should or should not create foreign keys in a...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2010/01/29/conor-vs-data-warehouses-an-introduction.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9955545" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. His Schedule</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2010/01/29/conor-vs-his-schedule.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:49:38 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9955531</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9955531.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9955531</wfw:commentRss><description>I apologize for those of you who have outstanding questions in my inbox.&amp;#160; I have been quite busy at work these days working on what I think are awesome features for a future release of SQL Server.&amp;#160; I resolve to be better in answering your mails...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2010/01/29/conor-vs-his-schedule.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9955531" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. “Does Join Order Matter?”</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/12/10/conor-vs-does-join-order-matter.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:38:29 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9935273</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9935273.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9935273</wfw:commentRss><description>I got this question/claim again this week, so I’ll write a blog post on it while I wait for my build to complete: It usually goes something like “When I rewrite my query, SQL Server gives me a different plan.&amp;#160; Therefore, I should rewrite all my queries...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/12/10/conor-vs-does-join-order-matter.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9935273" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. FOREIGN KEY join elimination</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/11/12/conor-vs-foreign-key-join-elimination.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:45:23 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9921384</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9921384.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9921384</wfw:commentRss><description>I received a question from a friend in Brazil related to foreign keys and join elimination in SQL Server.&amp;#160; Yes, SQL Server can detect that some joins are not needed to return results to the user and skip them.&amp;#160; What is this evil magic, you ask?&amp;#160;...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/11/12/conor-vs-foreign-key-join-elimination.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9921384" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. Windows 7</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/10/27/conor-vs-windows-7.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:55:49 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9913492</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9913492.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9913492</wfw:commentRss><description>(Not a SQL Server post) I have been meaning to install Windows 7, and I got around to doing it last night.&amp;#160; I usually run Windows 2003/8 Server for work, so my interest in the consumer side is perhaps not as high as some others.&amp;#160; Nevertheless,...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/10/27/conor-vs-windows-7.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9913492" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. UNIQUE in Index Definitions</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/10/21/conor-vs-unique-in-index-definitions.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:18:50 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9910695</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9910695.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9910695</wfw:commentRss><description>I gave a talk to the Austin-area PASS group last night on B-Tree indexing in SQL Server, and I received a question about whether to make clustered indexes UNIQUE or not (assuming the data is unique on the key columns).&amp;#160; The expectation was that this...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/10/21/conor-vs-unique-in-index-definitions.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9910695" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/tags/SQL/default.aspx">SQL</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/tags/performance/default.aspx">performance</category></item><item><title>Conor vs. Statement Offsets</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/08/13/conor-vs-statement-offsets.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:15:25 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9868299</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9868299.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9868299</wfw:commentRss><description>As most of you have figured out by now, I work mostly on queries :).&amp;#160; One of the things that I often need to do is to get a statement out of a batch so that I can go look more closely at a query plan (and, in my case, the code that generates it).&amp;#160;...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/08/13/conor-vs-statement-offsets.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9868299" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Server Cursors</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/08/13/server-cursors.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:58:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9868279</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9868279.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9868279</wfw:commentRss><description>My coworker Marc posted up a good introduction into the different server cursor models and you can see it here: http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlqueryprocessing/archive/2009/08/12/understanding-sql-server-fast-forward-server-cursors.aspx...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/08/13/server-cursors.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9868279" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. Stats NORECOMPUTE</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/08/13/conor-vs-stats-norecompute.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:52:54 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9868273</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9868273.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9868273</wfw:commentRss><description>It’s been a busy summer.&amp;#160; I got back from vacation and have been hard at work on new features for a future version of SQL Server.&amp;#160; You can always still send me questions about the existing product, of course, and I will answer them here (conorc...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/08/13/conor-vs-stats-norecompute.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9868273" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. Dynamic SQL vs. Procedures vs. Plan Quality for Parameterized Queries</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/06/03/conor-vs-dynamic-sql-vs-procedures-vs-plan-quality-for-parameterized-queries.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:39:02 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9693845</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9693845.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9693845</wfw:commentRss><description>I received a question from a customer today about query plan choice for a parameterized query - specifically that different plans get picked based on where the plan is located, and sometimes one might be better than another.&amp;#160; Apparently, for their...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/06/03/conor-vs-dynamic-sql-vs-procedures-vs-plan-quality-for-parameterized-queries.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9693845" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conor vs. Recompiles, part 2</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/05/25/conor-vs-recompiles-part-2.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 21:39:25 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9640736</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>2</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9640736.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9640736</wfw:commentRss><description>Thanks to those of you who replied to my previous post.&amp;#160; I spent the last week or so talking with customers, coworkers, and looking at various applications to see how recompiles are modeled today in their applications.&amp;#160; At a high level, SQL...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/05/25/conor-vs-recompiles-part-2.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9640736" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/tags/recompiles/default.aspx">recompiles</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/tags/plan+choice/default.aspx">plan choice</category></item><item><title>Conor vs. Recompiles</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/05/18/conor-vs-recompiles.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 21:45:03 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9625720</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>2</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9625720.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9625720</wfw:commentRss><description>I have a question for you guys about how do you force a recompile for a single query today? &amp;#160; There are a lots of different ways that one could cause the system to recompile a query: a) sp_recompile &amp;lt;object used in a query&amp;gt; b)DBCC FREEPROCCACHE...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/05/18/conor-vs-recompiles.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9625720" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Do Filtered Statistics update as frequently as normal statistics?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/04/17/do-filtered-statistics-update-as-frequently-as-normal-statistics.aspx</link><pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:01:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9554834</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9554834.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9554834</wfw:commentRss><description>I received a question this week about whether filtered statistics update as frequently as regular statistics.&amp;#160; The right way to ask the question is “Do filtered statistics become invalid as frequently as regular statistics?”, as stats are recomputed...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/04/17/do-filtered-statistics-update-as-frequently-as-normal-statistics.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9554834" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>SQL Server 2008 Internals Book Now Available!</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/03/23/sql-server-2008-internals-book-now-available.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:28:05 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9501374</guid><dc:creator>Conor Cunningham [MSFT]</dc:creator><slash:comments>3</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/comments/9501374.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/commentrss.aspx?PostID=9501374</wfw:commentRss><description>For those of you waiting for the new &amp;quot;Inside SQL Server&amp;quot; book, it is actually out now.&amp;#160; Kalen decided to give it a name change, and the actual title is &amp;quot;SQL Server 2008 Internals&amp;quot;.&amp;#160; I've written a chapter on how the Query...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/conor_cunningham_msft/archive/2009/03/23/sql-server-2008-internals-book-now-available.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9501374" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>