Kjt 20170301 rework udf getopenordersforlogin #295
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…170301_Rework_udf_GetOpenOrdersForLogin
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@jpknoll @srkirkland:
Here are the revisions I came up with. In a nutshell, I reverted back to using the individual index seeks instead of index scans for the OrderStatusCodes. I also put the main regular permissions query in an inner query, and the filtering by Login in an outer query so the case statement would not have to be evaluated twice, i.e., once in the select statement, and once in the where clause.
Lastly, I moved the majority of the comparisons out of the where clause and up to the individual joins just to make it easier to follow what was going on.