Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Anton Shepelev Newsgroups: comp.databases.ms-sqlserver Subject: Re: Alternative to WAITFOR DELAY Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:58:58 +0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 26 Message-ID: <20171130135858.38dd51d2bc9dc3114279db70@g{oogle}mail.com> References: <20171129233836.16edaac99510193c72857910@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a3e67e560a66da353fd168851f76a4a7"; logging-data="17244"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FpCOSrA6SXwtGieBMpD9A/cgxyliIs9Q=" X-Newsreader: Sylpheed 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.24.23; i686-pc-mingw32) Cancel-Lock: sha1:aDhclpKtFOcWoo4pbl18xOZ3H40= Xref: csiph.com comp.databases.ms-sqlserver:2000 Erland Sommarskog to Anton Shepelev: >>Is there a more granular way to ease a tight >>polling loop in T-SQL than WAITFOR DEALAY? A de- >>lay of 3.33 milliseconds being a tad too long for >>my purposes, I seek a way to implement delays of >>about half a millisecond or shorter. I do not >>need the precision of real-time systems and will >>accept any solution to prevent a fast WHILE 1=1 >>loop from hogging the CPU. > >I guess that you could write a CLR procedure for >the task. Thanks. No idea why it didn't occur to me. I have written .NET assemblies for MSSQL before. If per- formace testing shows a need for a shorter delay I will definitely follow your advice. Meanwhile, my loop switches to zero delay once it finds work to do, and back to a 3.3 ms delay once all work is done and in incoming queue is empty. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]