Comments on: Table-valued parameters in SQL 2005

By: Triggers – good or bad? - LobsterPot Blogs

Triggers – good or bad? - LobsterPot Blogs — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:33:29 +0000

[…] time readers might remember my posts from years ago about implementing Table-Valued Parameters in SQL 2005, or about TVPs in SSIS, and think that I have some interesting views about triggers. I’m not […]

By: Mr. T

Mr. T — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:16:54 +0000

Very nice article!
I am actually passing a DataTable from my .net application to SQL Server using table type. Now I need to make that work in 2005. Not sure how to incorporate your idea into this scenario.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 05:23:47 +0000

Nice. I was going to do something similar, I was going to use a view to call a web service api to update the remote data. This way lower mortals can use their table skills and access programs to transparently update cloud data.
Never thought of using it as you described here. That’s a good idea.
As for worrying about whether the "view" is interpreted as a proc by a human, then just prefix the view with vsp_, for example vsp_DoIt.

By: Dave Green (Sydney ex- RBA)

Dave Green (Sydney ex- RBA) — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 02:23:21 +0000

Not 10 years too late at all. Some large Australian banks are *still* deploying enterprise-wide applications onto SQL Server 2005.
I know, I know…
Anyhoo it’s a nice idea to use the trigger, but I probably stick with passing my varchar(max) csv string as a parameter and splitting it inside the proc via a table function.

By: Brad Schulz

Brad Schulz — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:51:57 +0000

Just caught up on some of my blog reading and finally read this entry.
Always love your out-of-the-box thinking. Very nice.
–Brad

By: Alexander Kuznetsov

Alexander Kuznetsov — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:34:46 +0000

Very nice. Very very nice.
Rob,
Have you benchmarked it against more traditional approaches, like Erland does in his articles?
When I had to send lots of numbers, like 50K or 100K integers, over to the server, sending an array in binary format as an image worked best for me on SQL 2005.

By: Rob Farley

Rob Farley — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:49:50 +0000

Michael – The obvious scenario is 2005, of course. But also, the fact that you don’t have to declare and populate a table variable could be advantageous for some environments.
Frank – that’s ok. It’s just putting an idea out there. I realise that code in triggers is not as obvious as code in stored procs, but I would also suggest that DBAs should be aware of all the places that code can exist.
Atul – yes, there’re lots of reasons why a TVP is a more elegant solution. 🙂

By: Atul Thakor

Atul Thakor — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:51:32 +0000

I remember when reading :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MCTS-Self-Paced-Training-Exam-70-433/dp/0735626391
The author gave a good example of where he used XML to replace a large number of parameters being passed into a stored procedure.
I imagine a table value parameter would be an even better option to pass a large number of parameters into a stored procedure.
Also… thinking about stored procedures… people can pass null’s as parameter values which you sometimes need to handle in the sproc.
Using the TVP you can enforce non-null values being passed in where you absolutely need them!

By: Frank Hell

Frank Hell — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:57:25 +0000

Holy Cow!
What would Joe Celko say to this trigger abuse? 🙂
I nice idea, but intransparent – I won’t use in my code…

By: mjswart

mjswart — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:31:46 +0000

Hi Rob,
The biggest value I see in TVPs is to be able to send sets of data to SQL Server from an application efficiently (Where the declaration and population of tables is taken care of).
I’m curious, do you see any scenarios where this insert-into-view method would get used or is this just a neat little trick?