Not really a question here...
Well, it is.

When i go to MSDN there is an article that states
that when you want to use a temporary table created by a stored procedure with ADO...
You should place SET NOCOUNT ON before any action is taken, they don't mention SET NOCOUNT OFF.

But then in SQL Books Online is stated that you
always should place SET NOCOUNT OFF after the handling...

What do these commands actually really do etc...
Who is Participating?
deestuarConnect With a Mentor Commented:
I normally do both for good practise if you don't do this you can get problems when retrieving data with record sets
Guy Hengel [angelIII / a3]Billing EngineerCommented:
I do actually only put it in front (SET NOCOUNT ON),
when my stored procedures are returning empty recordsets which are skipped that way when reading from VB+ADO.
When testing some scripts with some insert statments, i use it too, but for the rest i don't...
Set nocount on stops the message indicating the number of rows affected by a sql statement from being returned.  If you go to query analyzer and run the statement you will not get the message 5 rows affected.  I have read a number of articles that claim that by setting nocount on in your procedures you can really get a performance boost but I have never really tested this theory.
wvandeneedeAuthor Commented:
Since this wasn't really a question, i don't know
who to give the points to?

I hope everyone will be satisfied when i just give
them to the first reaction

measly little 10 points anyway ;)

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.