Skip to main content

SQL Server - Use Table Valued parameters to construct an IN statement

A colleague created a stored procedure that returns some data from a specific table. Nothing special would you think and you are right. The only reason we were using a stored procedure here is that we had a very specific requirement that every attempt to read data from this specific table should be logged.

Here is a simplified version of the stored procedure he created:

What I want to talk about in this post is the usage of a (comma separated) string parameter that is used to construct the filter criteria for the query.

Remark: This version of the stored procedure is already better than the original version that was using dynamic SQL to construct an IN clause:

Using Table-Valued Parameters

We can further improve the procedure above by using a table valued parameter.

To use table-valued parameters instead of comma-separated strings in your stored procedure, you can follow these steps:

Step 1: Create a Table-Valued Parameter Type

First, you need to create a table-valued parameter type. This type will represent the structure of the values you want to pass to your stored procedure.

Step 2: Modify the Stored Procedure

Now we can modify our stored procedure to accept the new table-valued parameter type:

Step 3: Call the Stored Procedure with our Table-Valued Parameter

When calling the stored procedure, you'll need to declare a variable of the table type and populate it with your values:

Key advantages

Using this approach offers some advantages:

  • Performance: Table-valued parameters are generally more efficient than using comma-separated strings, especially for larger datasets.
  • Allows using strongly typed parameters: We don’t have to cast the parameter values to the correct datatype.
  • Supports larger data sets: The size of the string parameter is limited. By using table value parameters we can support larger parameter sets.

More information

Use table-valued parameters (Database Engine) - SQL Server | Microsoft Learn

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...