Keeping SQL out of the buffer or finding a way to improve page life expectancy?

Posted by Stewart Robinson on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by Stewart Robinson
Published on 2010-03-19T15:43:25Z Indexed on 2010/03/19 18:21 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 161

Filed under:

My SQL Server 2008 server gets flooded with dynamic SQL from one stored procedure. I am wondering whether I can tell SQL Server not to store this one stored procedure in the pool as it doesn't matter too much whether it executes quickly. Perhaps there is an equivalent of (nolock) for (nobuffer) or similar?

Any ideas?

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about sql-server-2008