Deciding Whether To Clean Up Temp Tables

Grant Fritchey looks at what difference explicitly dropping temporary tables in a procedure makes:

I then set up Extended Events to capture the query metrics and I executed each of the queries multiple times (also, just for the test, I discarded the results because I didn’t want that process mucking with my measurements). After executing both procedures 500 times, the results were quite simple. The average execution time with an explicit drop was 8,672 microseconds. Meanwhile, the average for not dropping the temporary table was 8,530 microseconds. That’s about a 1% difference across hundreds of executions. Reads were identical and so were writes.

In short, the behavior is the same.

What about the impact on the system? Could I see changes in memory or I/O as these different processes ran?

Grant didn’t notice any difference but check Allen White and Jay Robinson’s answers in the comments.  Temp table reuse can happen (if you follow the rules) and can make a difference when a procedure is called frequently enough.

Related Posts

Performance Testing Simple Scalar UDF Functions

Wayne Sheffield tries out a simple scalar UDF in SQL Server 2019 to see how it performs: I recently published a post detailing the new Scalar UDF Inlining feature in SQL 2019 here. That post introduced the new feature in a way that I used to compare performance to the other function types, continuing the […]

Read More

Performance Troubleshooting Plus Wait Stats

Jeff Mlakar builds up some thoughts on performance troubleshooting, including wait stats: Queries go through the cycle of the SPIDS / worker threads waiting in a series like this. A thread uses the resource e.g. CPU until it needs to yield to another that is waiting. It then moves to an unordered list of threads […]

Read More

Categories

October 2018
MTWTFSS
« Sep Nov »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031