Clujtourism

https://stackoverflow.com › questions
Consequently use of SET NOCOUNT ON has become a common practice with SQL Server unless the row counts are actually needed by the application An additional

https://stackoverflow.com › questions
SET NOCOUNT ON prevents the sending of DONE IN PROC messages to the client for each statement in a stored procedure For stored procedures that contain several

https://es.stackoverflow.com › questions › set-nocount-on-donde-usar-ot…
SET NOCOUNT ON no es un m todo para optimizar y acelerar una consulta Lo que hace es evitar que se muestren mensajes de la cantidad de filas afectadas Esto se hace

https://stackoverflow.com › questions
I am creating a stored procedure in Sql Server 2008 database I want to return the number of rows affected Which is a better option SET NOCOUNT OFF or RETURN

https://stackoverflow.com › questions
48 set nocount on will disable the X rows affected message SQL returns This message is suppressed in some cases due to undesired effects with the client executing the stored proc

https://stackoverflow.com › questions
TSQL NOCOUNT should be set as needed by the code in the data access layer Just like transactions and locking levels Setting these things every time in the executing SQL

https://dba.stackexchange.com › questions
You are looking at the wrong part of SQL Servers s output NOCOUNT only controls the extra row s affected messages that are output after SELECT INSERT

https://stackoverflow.com › questions
I have a complex application with many SQL queries I recently found that SET NOCOUNT ON improves the performance and bandwidth of server when count is not needed

https://stackoverflow.com › questions
5 set nocount on will disable the X rows affected message SQL returns This message is suppressed in some cases due to undesired effects with the client executing the