Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Alternative to WAITFOR DELAY
199 views
Skip to first unread message
Anton Shepelev
Nov 29, 2017, 3:38:22 PM11/29/17
to
Hello, all
Is there a more granular way to ease a tight polling
loop in T-SQL than WAITFOR DEALAY? A delay of 3.33
milliseconds being a tad too long for my purposes, I
seek a way to implement delays of about half a mil-
lisecond 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.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Is there a more granular way to ease a tight polling
loop in T-SQL than WAITFOR DEALAY? A delay of 3.33
milliseconds being a tad too long for my purposes, I
seek a way to implement delays of about half a mil-
lisecond 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.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Erland Sommarskog
Nov 29, 2017, 4:49:32 PM11/29/17
to
Anton Shepelev (anto...@gmail.com) writes:
> Is there a more granular way to ease a tight polling
> loop in T-SQL than WAITFOR DEALAY? A delay of 3.33
> milliseconds being a tad too long for my purposes, I
> seek a way to implement delays of about half a mil-
> lisecond 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.
> Is there a more granular way to ease a tight polling
> loop in T-SQL than WAITFOR DEALAY? A delay of 3.33
> milliseconds being a tad too long for my purposes, I
> seek a way to implement delays of about half a mil-
> lisecond 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.
>
Anton Shepelev
Nov 30, 2017, 5:59:03 AM11/30/17
to
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-
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]
>>Is there a more granular way to ease a tight
>>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
>>my purposes, I seek a way to implement delays of
>>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
>>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.
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]
0 new messages