Is an in-memory table faster to read from than a table cached in memory?
2
votes
2
answers
1208
views
Is an in-memory (aka Hekaton) table faster to read from than a non-in-memory table that's already cached in the memory of a SQL server?
I ask this because I have a case where I'm considering converting one of my tables to an in-memory table, but right now it's pretty fast to load into the memory cache, but the performance to read / operate against it after it's loaded into the cache is where it's slow.
Can I still see potential performance improvements by converting this table to an in-memory table?
Asked by J.D.
(40903 rep)
Nov 27, 2019, 09:19 PM
Last activity: Nov 28, 2019, 12:38 AM
Last activity: Nov 28, 2019, 12:38 AM