performance difference between query analyzer and .NET code.

Dear Sir,
I used dynamic SQL on stored procedure to do the paging in my site.
I often hit a connection time out problem with that dynamic SQl when I call
it from .NET code.
However if it run it under query analyzer, everything works fine.
Who can explain this to me and what should I do in this case?
regards,
Guoqi Zheng
http://www.ureader.comWhen you say "everything works fine", do you also mean that the execution
time in Query Analyzer is within the connection timeout you have set in your
.Net application?
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||> I used dynamic SQL on stored procedure to do the paging in my site.
> I often hit a connection time out problem with that dynamic SQl when I
> call
> it from .NET code.
> However if it run it under query analyzer, everything works fine.
> Who can explain this to me and what should I do in this case?
If "everything works fine" still means it's slow, and extends beyond the
timeout setting that ML mentioned, then everything is not working fine.
One thing you might try is a different paging approach. There are probably
a handful of samples here that will be faster and safer than dynamic SQL:
http://www.aspfaq.com/2120

performance comparision of different connection types

Do you know some performance differences between reading data from a stored procedure using:

1. OLE DB Connection and OLE DB Source

2. ADO.NET Connection and DatareaderSource

Przemo

If you could do some testing and share it here I'm sure people would be intreested in reading it.

-Jamie

Performance Anomaly

I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in 19
seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
stored procedure?
When you are running the procedure from your application, make sure there's
no blocking happening in the server. You could use sp_who to check this.
Also, some of the SET options play a role in the query plan, and it could be
that these options are different between Query Analyzer and your application
connection.
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Tom @. Metrinex" <Tom @. Metrinex@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90F4AF2-6C23-4465-961A-434925E83CBE@.microsoft.com...
I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in
19
seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
stored procedure?
|||I have seen no blocking or a difference in the connection set options. Are
there any other possiblities? In the event I see blocking what should I do?
What does this indicate, is the server overloaded?
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> When you are running the procedure from your application, make sure there's
> no blocking happening in the server. You could use sp_who to check this.
> Also, some of the SET options play a role in the query plan, and it could be
> that these options are different between Query Analyzer and your application
> connection.
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "Tom @. Metrinex" <Tom @. Metrinex@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C90F4AF2-6C23-4465-961A-434925E83CBE@.microsoft.com...
> I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
> procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
> Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
> the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in
> 19
> seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
> stored procedure?
>
>

Performance Anomaly

I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my queries.
If I run a stored procedure from my web application or from Visual Studio it
will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run the stored
procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in 19 seconds.
What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this stored
procedure?Run a Profiler trace and see exactly how the procedure is being called
from your web application.|||Please do not multipost. I answered in .server.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Tom @. Metrinex" <TomMetrinex@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5286E608-C003-4F01-B2AF-7913134C2996@.microsoft.com...
I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my queries.
If I run a stored procedure from my web application or from Visual Studio it
will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run the stored
procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in 19 seconds.
What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this stored
procedure?

Performance Anomaly

I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in 1
9
seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
stored procedure?When you are running the procedure from your application, make sure there's
no blocking happening in the server. You could use sp_who to check this.
Also, some of the SET options play a role in the query plan, and it could be
that these options are different between Query Analyzer and your application
connection.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Tom @. Metrinex" <Tom @. Metrinex@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90F4AF2-6C23-4465-961A-434925E83CBE@.microsoft.com...
I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in
19
seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
stored procedure?|||I have seen no blocking or a difference in the connection set options. Are
there any other possiblities? In the event I see blocking what should I do?
What does this indicate, is the server overloaded?
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> When you are running the procedure from your application, make sure there'
s
> no blocking happening in the server. You could use sp_who to check this.
> Also, some of the SET options play a role in the query plan, and it could
be
> that these options are different between Query Analyzer and your applicati
on
> connection.
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "Tom @. Metrinex" <Tom @. Metrinex@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messa
ge
> news:C90F4AF2-6C23-4465-961A-434925E83CBE@.microsoft.com...
> I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
> procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
> Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
> the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in
> 19
> seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
> stored procedure?
>
>

Performance Anomaly

I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in 19
seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
stored procedure?When you are running the procedure from your application, make sure there's
no blocking happening in the server. You could use sp_who to check this.
Also, some of the SET options play a role in the query plan, and it could be
that these options are different between Query Analyzer and your application
connection.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Tom @. Metrinex" <Tom @. Metrinex@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90F4AF2-6C23-4465-961A-434925E83CBE@.microsoft.com...
I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in
19
seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
stored procedure?|||I have seen no blocking or a difference in the connection set options. Are
there any other possiblities? In the event I see blocking what should I do?
What does this indicate, is the server overloaded?
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:
> When you are running the procedure from your application, make sure there's
> no blocking happening in the server. You could use sp_who to check this.
> Also, some of the SET options play a role in the query plan, and it could be
> that these options are different between Query Analyzer and your application
> connection.
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "Tom @. Metrinex" <Tom @. Metrinex@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C90F4AF2-6C23-4465-961A-434925E83CBE@.microsoft.com...
> I am currently having a strange performance problem with one of my stored
> procedures. If I run the stored procedure from my web application or from
> Visual Studio it will timeout after 5 minutes (my timeout setting). If run
> the stored procedure using SQL Query Analyzer it executes without issue in
> 19
> seconds. What can cause this severe difference in the performance of this
> stored procedure?
>
>

perform floating point addition in SQL stored procedure

Hi..
Is there any way to add the value of 4 column and at the same time print the result together with another column?

I have this stored procedure:

CREATE PROCEDURE sp_queuelist AS
BEGIN
DECLARE @.temp1 As Decimal
DECLARE @.temp2 As Decimal
DECLARE @.cash As Decimal
DECLARE @.cheque As Decimal
DECLARE @.card As Decimal
DECLARE @.nets As Decimal
DECLARE @.bill As Decimal
DECLARE @.company As Decimal

SELECT
@.cash=Cash,@.cheque=Cheque,@.card=Card,@.nets=Nets,
@.bill=Bill,@.company=Company
FROM QUEUE
ORDER BY QNo

SET @.temp1 = @.cash + @.cheque + @.card + @.nets
SET @.temp2 = @.bill +@.company

Select QNO,
PCNo,
PName,
@.temp1 As totalCash,
@.temp2 As totalContract,
Doctor

FROM QUEUE
ORDER BY QNo
END
GO

Basically I want to add 4 columns: cash+cheque+card+nets into totalCash and bill+company to totalContract.

All the 6 field types are decimal.

I want to calculate temp1 and temp2 and then select the rest of the column to be displayed in the datagrid.

However, this stored procedure gives me 2 problems:
1. It gives the rounding result of the addition of decimal number, not the decimal itself.
2. All the rows in datagrid display the same result for totalCash and totalContract, which is the total from the last row in the table.

I seldom use stored procedure.
Is there any way to solve this problem?
Any suggestion is most welcomed.
Thank you in advanced.
Sincerely

Agustina(1) you can try changing the decimal to float.

(2) in the design of your table, you can set the formula for the column as sum of the other 4 columns. that way you dont need to worry abt doing the addition. anytime you make any change in any of the columns, the computed column is automatically updated.
if you need more help in this approach, let me know.

HTH.

perform all the actions in one pass rather than take serveral call

You're going to spend far less time writing a stored procedure that creates
one account and iterating through your array in your client application
calling the stored proc.
"E B via webservertalk.com" wrote:

> My application has one web form where admin can add as many users as
> desired and at the end when he press SaveChanges I want to add all of them
> to database, There should be some way to pass arrays to stored procedure..
I
> am looking for it or something similar to this...
> I want to pass an array into a stored procedure so that it can perform all
> the actions in one pass rather than take serveral calls to the server.
> I'm working with (SQL Server, .NET)
> --
> Message posted via http://www.webservertalk.com
>Alien2_51 wrote:
> You're going to spend far less time writing a stored procedure that
> creates one account and iterating through your array in your client
> application calling the stored proc.
>
bs
--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"|||to Bob Barrows [MVP] what does it mean ?
Message posted via http://www.webservertalk.com|||E B via webservertalk.com wrote:
> to Bob Barrows [MVP] what does it mean ?
Oh, I'm sorry. it's short for:
I don't believe that what you said is necessarily correct.
Bob Barrows
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"|||Ok, however i think i solve the problem , i used the link:
http://www.sommarskog.se/arrays-in-sql.html
what do u think'
Message posted via http://www.webservertalk.com|||E B via webservertalk.com wrote:
> Ok, however i think i solve the problem , i used the link:
> http://www.sommarskog.se/arrays-in-sql.html
> what do u think'
Well, there are several options in that link. Hopefully you satisfied
yourself that you picked the optimum one for your situation.
BTW, my comment was not directed at you. it was directed at the comment that
looping through the array in the client and making multiple calls to a
procedure ... across processes ... would be quicker than making a single
call to a stored procedure.
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"

perfomance related questions

Why would a stored procedure take longer to run on an OLTP environment
although %processor time doesnt seem to be pegged ( 30%), %disk time is
around 10% and pages/sec is 0. It takes around 10 secs to run everytime on
an average but runs faster on development boxes like around 1 sec. It has
the same exact execution plan on both environments. My question is what else
do i need to look into since it doesnt seem to be hardware bound here. Using
SQL 2000. CPU and reads in trace are also higher than in our dev
environment. but the perfmon for h/w looks decent or atleast not that bad .
Any other counters to look at or suggestionsDo you have the same amount of data on both servers? For example if you
have a cursor that runs through all the records in one table and in the
development database you have only 100 records but in the production server
you have 100000 records, then I'd exepect that the stored procedure would
take longer to run on the production server. Also if you have lots of
users that are working with the database in the production, you might have
locking problems, that slow the execution.
Adi
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eY8NNr7YDHA.2524@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Why would a stored procedure take longer to run on an OLTP environment
> although %processor time doesnt seem to be pegged ( 30%), %disk time is
> around 10% and pages/sec is 0. It takes around 10 secs to run everytime on
> an average but runs faster on development boxes like around 1 sec. It has
> the same exact execution plan on both environments. My question is what
else
> do i need to look into since it doesnt seem to be hardware bound here.
Using
> SQL 2000. CPU and reads in trace are also higher than in our dev
> environment. but the perfmon for h/w looks decent or atleast not that bad
.
> Any other counters to look at or suggestions
>
>|||perfmon cpu is the instantaneous cpu usage, profiler cpu
is the cumulative cpu for the query, regardless of how
long it took,
unless a query takes several cpu secs, and the difference
between profiler duration and cpu is not larger, you may
not even notice the cpu in perfmon
>--Original Message--
>Assuming the stored procedure was only selecting , why
would the CPU from
>perfmon do not show it as busy yet consume more time in
CPU in profiler to
>execute the sproc. There is no parallelism. There are
some temp tables
>..There are some nested joins.
>"joe chang" <jchang6@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:000d01c36401$27d19f60$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> what specifically are the production and development
>> systems?
>> processor, frequency, cache, #of cpu, memory, # of
disks,
>> status of hyper-threading?
>> what is in the execution plan of your stored proc ?
>> joins - what type, loop, hash, merge, row count for each
>> table, is there a temp table involved? is a parallel
plan
>> involved? if so, disabled HT or try OPTION (MAXDOP 1)
>> sometimes the dev env is JBOD (no raid) the prod env is
>> raid5, with absolutely horrible write performance, so
>> anything that involves writes will performance much
worse
>> on the $40k production system than the $1k dev system
>> >--Original Message--
>> >Why would a stored procedure take longer to run on an
>> OLTP environment
>> >although %processor time doesnt seem to be pegged (
30%),
>> %disk time is
>> >around 10% and pages/sec is 0. It takes around 10 secs
to
>> run everytime on
>> >an average but runs faster on development boxes like
>> around 1 sec. It has
>> >the same exact execution plan on both environments. My
>> question is what else
>> >do i need to look into since it doesnt seem to be
>> hardware bound here. Using
>> >SQL 2000. CPU and reads in trace are also higher than
in
>> our dev
>> >environment. but the perfmon for h/w looks decent or
>> atleast not that bad .
>> >Any other counters to look at or suggestions
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>.
>

Perfomance

I have stored procedure that is taking longer time in production than in
Test. I narrowed the longer time being taken to the order by clause in a
subquery. The execution plans look different in the test than in production
server. The databases are identical. What could be causing this?
The production server is much beefier than the test.
Thanks
Rahul
Plenty of things, e.g. out of date statistics, missing indexes,
fragmentation, different size of data...
Can you be more specific about how the "execution plans look different"? Is
one doing a seek and the other a scan, or is one doing a different kind of
join, or...?
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
"Rahul" <reach_aggarwal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uwMMzLbuHHA.4916@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have stored procedure that is taking longer time in production than in
>Test. I narrowed the longer time being taken to the order by clause in a
>subquery. The execution plans look different in the test than in production
>server. The databases are identical. What could be causing this?
> The production server is much beefier than the test.
> Thanks
> Rahul
>

Perfomance

I have stored procedure that is taking longer time in production than in
Test. I narrowed the longer time being taken to the order by clause in a
subquery. The execution plans look different in the test than in production
server. The databases are identical. What could be causing this?
The production server is much beefier than the test.
Thanks
RahulPlenty of things, e.g. out of date statistics, missing indexes,
fragmentation, different size of data...
Can you be more specific about how the "execution plans look different"? Is
one doing a seek and the other a scan, or is one doing a different kind of
join, or...?
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
"Rahul" <reach_aggarwal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uwMMzLbuHHA.4916@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have stored procedure that is taking longer time in production than in
>Test. I narrowed the longer time being taken to the order by clause in a
>subquery. The execution plans look different in the test than in production
>server. The databases are identical. What could be causing this?
> The production server is much beefier than the test.
> Thanks
> Rahul
>

Perfomance

I have stored procedure that is taking longer time in production than in
Test. I narrowed the longer time being taken to the order by clause in a
subquery. The execution plans look different in the test than in production
server. The databases are identical. What could be causing this?
The production server is much beefier than the test.
Thanks
RahulPlenty of things, e.g. out of date statistics, missing indexes,
fragmentation, different size of data...
Can you be more specific about how the "execution plans look different"? Is
one doing a seek and the other a scan, or is one doing a different kind of
join, or...?
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
"Rahul" <reach_aggarwal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uwMMzLbuHHA.4916@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have stored procedure that is taking longer time in production than in
>Test. I narrowed the longer time being taken to the order by clause in a
>subquery. The execution plans look different in the test than in production
>server. The databases are identical. What could be causing this?
> The production server is much beefier than the test.
> Thanks
> Rahul
>

Percentages of total

This probably is easy, but I haven't seen a good way to
do it yet.
I have a stored procedure that returns a numer or rows
that get grouped. Details are available if the person
expands the tree. I would also like to add the
percentage of total records as part of the display, but
can not figure out how to get a "total record count" to
work within the grouping to give me the appropraite
percentage.
What I am trying to do is this:
Custom Num Sales Percentage of Total Volume
+Cust A 25 25%
+Cust B 35 35%
+Cust C 40 40%
How can I keep and access a static count of the number of
records being returned by the dataset without having to
pass that as a calculated field in the stored procedure?
Thanks=Sum(Fields!NumSales.Value)/Sum(Fields!NumSales.Value,"Dataset1")
--
This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties, and confers no rights. All
rights reserved. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Your
mileage may vary. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. No user
serviceable parts inside. Opening cover voids warranty. Keep out of reach of
children under 3.
"David" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:38c101c46a9d$60568870$3a01280a@.phx.gbl...
> This probably is easy, but I haven't seen a good way to
> do it yet.
> I have a stored procedure that returns a numer or rows
> that get grouped. Details are available if the person
> expands the tree. I would also like to add the
> percentage of total records as part of the display, but
> can not figure out how to get a "total record count" to
> work within the grouping to give me the appropraite
> percentage.
> What I am trying to do is this:
> Custom Num Sales Percentage of Total Volume
> +Cust A 25 25%
> +Cust B 35 35%
> +Cust C 40 40%
> How can I keep and access a static count of the number of
> records being returned by the dataset without having to
> pass that as a calculated field in the stored procedure?
> Thanks
>|||Hi Chris,
Thanks for the response, and I guess my example is not as
clear as it could be through over simplification.
I am trying to do percentage of groups of records based
on not the sales/or data values, but number of records.
So if you look at my example, consider it as number of
sales is the number of records or detail items, and I
want to do that as a percentage of total records
returned, so nothing that I have in the dataset as a
field value, but the overall record count.
A more specific example. I have a record set returning
634 records. One group that gets rolled up has 14
records, So I am trying to do at the group footer =RecordCount()/TotalRecordCount but I don't know where to
capture this.
A work around is just adding a column with 1 in it to the
record set and doing you method, but I am trying to avoid
that.
>--Original Message--
>=Sum(Fields!NumSales.Value)/Sum(Fields!
NumSales.Value,"Dataset1")
>--
>This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties, and
confers no rights. All
>rights reserved. Some assembly required. Batteries not
included. Your
>mileage may vary. Objects in mirror may be closer than
they appear. No user
>serviceable parts inside. Opening cover voids warranty.
Keep out of reach of
>children under 3.
>"David" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:38c101c46a9d$60568870$3a01280a@.phx.gbl...
>> This probably is easy, but I haven't seen a good way to
>> do it yet.
>> I have a stored procedure that returns a numer or rows
>> that get grouped. Details are available if the person
>> expands the tree. I would also like to add the
>> percentage of total records as part of the display, but
>> can not figure out how to get a "total record count" to
>> work within the grouping to give me the appropraite
>> percentage.
>> What I am trying to do is this:
>> Custom Num Sales Percentage of Total Volume
>> +Cust A 25 25%
>> +Cust B 35 35%
>> +Cust C 40 40%
>> How can I keep and access a static count of the number
of
>> records being returned by the dataset without having to
>> pass that as a calculated field in the stored
procedure?
>> Thanks
>>
>
>.
>|||If you're just after a count of rows, you could do this:
=CountRows()/CountRows("Dataset1")
This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties, and confers no rights. All
rights reserved. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Your
mileage may vary. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. No user
serviceable parts inside. Opening cover voids warranty. Keep out of reach of
children under 3.
"Dave" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:398701c46b2d$f5b4e570$3a01280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi Chris,
> Thanks for the response, and I guess my example is not as
> clear as it could be through over simplification.
> I am trying to do percentage of groups of records based
> on not the sales/or data values, but number of records.
> So if you look at my example, consider it as number of
> sales is the number of records or detail items, and I
> want to do that as a percentage of total records
> returned, so nothing that I have in the dataset as a
> field value, but the overall record count.
> A more specific example. I have a record set returning
> 634 records. One group that gets rolled up has 14
> records, So I am trying to do at the group footer => RecordCount()/TotalRecordCount but I don't know where to
> capture this.
> A work around is just adding a column with 1 in it to the
> record set and doing you method, but I am trying to avoid
> that.
>
> >--Original Message--
> >=Sum(Fields!NumSales.Value)/Sum(Fields!
> NumSales.Value,"Dataset1")
> >
> >--
> >This post is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties, and
> confers no rights. All
> >rights reserved. Some assembly required. Batteries not
> included. Your
> >mileage may vary. Objects in mirror may be closer than
> they appear. No user
> >serviceable parts inside. Opening cover voids warranty.
> Keep out of reach of
> >children under 3.
> >"David" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:38c101c46a9d$60568870$3a01280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> This probably is easy, but I haven't seen a good way to
> >> do it yet.
> >>
> >> I have a stored procedure that returns a numer or rows
> >> that get grouped. Details are available if the person
> >> expands the tree. I would also like to add the
> >> percentage of total records as part of the display, but
> >> can not figure out how to get a "total record count" to
> >> work within the grouping to give me the appropraite
> >> percentage.
> >>
> >> What I am trying to do is this:
> >>
> >> Custom Num Sales Percentage of Total Volume
> >> +Cust A 25 25%
> >> +Cust B 35 35%
> >> +Cust C 40 40%
> >>
> >> How can I keep and access a static count of the number
> of
> >> records being returned by the dataset without having to
> >> pass that as a calculated field in the stored
> procedure?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >