SQL Cursors…Any use cases you would defend?

Question

I'll go first.

I'm 100% in the set-operations camp. But what happens when the set logic on the entire desired input domain leads to a such a large retrieval that the query slows down significantly, comes to a crawl, or basically takes infinite time?

That's one case where I'll use a itty-bitty cursor (or a while loop) of perhaps most dozens of rows (as opposed to the millions I'm targeting). Thus, I'm still working in (partitioned sub) sets, but my retrieval runs faster.

Of course, an even faster solution would be to call the partioned input domains in parallel from outside, but that introduces an interaction will an external system, and when "good enough" speed can be achieved by looping in serial, just may not be worth it (epecially during development).

Answer 1

Along with what David B said, I, too, prefer the loop/table approach.

With that out of the way, one use case for cursors and the loop/table approach involves extremely large updates. Let's say you have to update 1 billion rows. In many instances, this may not need to be transactional. For example, it might be a data warehouse aggregation where you have the potential to reconstruct from source files if things go south.

In this case, it may be best to do the update in "chunks", perhaps 1 million or 10 million rows at a time. This helps keep resource usage to a minimum, and allows concurrent use of the machine to be maximized while you update that billion rows. A looped/chunked approach might be best here. Billion row updates on less-than-stellar hardware tend to cause problems.

Answer 2

Cursors are also handy when you want to run a system proc multiple times with different input values. I have no intention of trying to rewrite system procs to be set-based, so I will use a cursor then. Plus you are usually going through a very limited number of objects. You can do the same thing with an existing proc that inserts only one record at a time, but from a performance view, this is usually a bad thing if you have alot of records to run through. Those I will rewrite to be set-based.

Running totals as discussed by others can be faster.

If you are emailing from the database (not the best idea but sometimes it is what you are stuck with), then a cursor can ensure that customer a doesn't see customer b's email address when you send both the same email.

Answer 3

Having to use a cursor is generally a sign that you are doing in the database what ought to be done in the application. As others have said, cursors are generally needed when a stored procedure is calculating running totals, or when you're generating code and/or meta-programming.

But why are you doing that kind of work in a stored procedure in the first place? Is that really the best use of your database server? Is T-SQL really the right language to use when generating code?

Sure, sometimes the answer is "yes," or, more likely, "no, but it's simpler this way." In my view, keeping things simple trumps premature optimization any day of the week. So I use cursors. But when I think I need to use a cursor, the universe is asking me a question that I should really have a good answer to.

Answer 4

Well one operation where cursors are better than sets is when calculating a running total and similar stuff.