<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>cache on AdaTheDev Blog</title><link>https://www.adathedev.co.uk/tags/cache/</link><description>Recent content in cache on AdaTheDev Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><managingEditor>adathedev@gmail.com (Adrian Hills)</managingEditor><webMaster>adathedev@gmail.com (Adrian Hills)</webMaster><lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:32:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.adathedev.co.uk/tags/cache/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Would you like SQL cache with that?</title><link>https://www.adathedev.co.uk/2010/02/would-you-like-sql-cache-with-that.html</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:32:00 +0000</pubDate><author>adathedev@gmail.com (Adrian Hills)</author><guid>https://www.adathedev.co.uk/2010/02/would-you-like-sql-cache-with-that.html</guid><description>One of the things I feel I keep badgering on about in the world of SQL Server and query tuning is to be fair and consistent when comparing the different possible variants. If you don&amp;rsquo;t level the playing field, then potentially it will lead to you thinking a particular query out-performs another when in fact the opposite could be true. It&amp;rsquo;s a bit like comparing 2 paper boys to see which one can complete a given round the quickest - if one of them has been doing the round for the past 2 weeks but the other has never done that round before, then are you going to be able to reliably tell which one is actually quickest?</description></item></channel></rss>