datetime Parameter issue

I'm using a sproc to insert the time (Now()) into a datetime field. Somehow the time "seconds" are not making it into the field. For example, the variable grabs the value of Now() - "9/16/2005 01:58:15 AM" to insert into the field. But when I view the records, the datetime value is "2005-09-16 13:58:00.000".
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for your help!
Lynnette
Here is a snippet of the code and the sproc:

Dim recDateAs DateTime = Now()
cmd.Parameters.Add(New SqlParameter("@.DELastChg", SqlDbType.DateTime)).Value = recDate

ALTER PROC usp_AddTmpFLSAfromPT
@.dtWdate datetime,
@.whereString as varchar(255),
@.DEuser as varchar(30),
@.DELastChg datetime

AS

DECLARE @.strSQL as varchar(2000)

SET @.strSQL =
'
INSERT INTO tmpFLSAEmpInfo
( Emp_Number,
PT_ID,
Emp_Division,
Emp_Dept,
--Emp_DeptInfo,
Emp_Supervisor,
Emp_Location,
Emp_Union,
Emp_SG,
Emp_Shift,
DEusername,
DELastChg,
WrkDate
)
SELECT
Employee2.Emp_Number,
Employee2.[ID],
Employee2.Division,
Employee2.Job_Dept_Code,
Employee2.Job_Supervisor,
Employee2.Loc_Name,
Employee2.[Union],
Employee2.Sched_Group,
Employee2.Shift,
''' + @.DEUser + ''',
''' + CONVERT(varchar, @.DELastChg) + ''',
''' + CONVERT(varchar, @.dtWdate) + '''

FROM Employee2
WHERE '
+ @.whereString

EXEC(@.strSQL)

You are prbly losing the seconds because of the conversion to varchar in your code above. Put in the size also. Perhaps something like this :CONVERT(varchar(20), @.dtWdate) might help.|||Thanks for the response! I tried your suggestion, but it had no effect - still losing the seconds. I tried using CONVERT(datetime, @.DELastChg, 131) but then I get an error that I cannot convert string to DATETIME. I am hopelessly stuck.
Any other suggestions?
Thanks!
Lynnette|||Changed it toCONVERT(varchar, @.DELastChg, 113) and it works!

.NET Performance - Native vs OLE DB

Using a local instance of SQL Server 2000 and .NET I have managed to insert 4000 rows across multiple tables using the OLE DB provider in 11 seconds but when using the native provider it takes 13 seconds.
I was under the impression the native provider should enhance performance not decrease it? Why is this?
Thanks, Robby
By native provider, do you mean System.Data.SqlClient? In general SqlClient
is a good deal faster than using the combination of System.Data.OleDb and
the native oledb provider for sql server. To comment further, I'd need to
know more about your scenario.
Thanks,
Dave
"Robby White" <Robby White@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:04E120F8-5A6E-42F9-80E9-8BBD32B887C3@.microsoft.com...
> Using a local instance of SQL Server 2000 and .NET I have managed to
insert 4000 rows across multiple tables using the OLE DB provider in 11
seconds but when using the native provider it takes 13 seconds.
> I was under the impression the native provider should enhance performance
not decrease it? Why is this?
> Thanks, Robby
|||Yes I mean the System.Data.SqlClient provider.
Inserting 4000 records into SQL Server 2000
using the System.Data.SqlClient took 14 seconds
using the System.Data.Odbc took 13 seconds
using the System.Data.OleDb took 12 seconds
I have tried running these tests in different orders also and get the same results. I realise the times are close but I am concerned about scalibility.
Robby White
"David Schleifer [MSFT]" wrote:

> By native provider, do you mean System.Data.SqlClient? In general SqlClient
> is a good deal faster than using the combination of System.Data.OleDb and
> the native oledb provider for sql server. To comment further, I'd need to
> know more about your scenario.
> Thanks,
> Dave
> "Robby White" <Robby White@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:04E120F8-5A6E-42F9-80E9-8BBD32B887C3@.microsoft.com...
> insert 4000 rows across multiple tables using the OLE DB provider in 11
> seconds but when using the native provider it takes 13 seconds.
> not decrease it? Why is this?
>
>
|||The insert operation is a fairly simple one, compared to other provider
operations such as reading data, so it's hard for any one provider to exceed
another once it's been reasonbly optimized. If you want to compare overall
provider performance, whatever benchmark you choose would have to include a
fair measure of read operations, which is one of the areas where SqlClient
really outperforms the oledb managed provider.
That said, when I tried a simple test with 16000 distinct insert operations
(i.e. seperate round trip for each), I got results for SqlClient that were
1-2% better than the OleDb provider. I think it's fair to say that the two
providers are basically equivalent for many types of insert operations, but
overall for best performance you will be better off with SqlClient.
If you are only interested in insert performance, you will probably want to
check out the Whidbey release of .NET, where SqlClient supports a bulk load
api.
"Robby White" <RobbyWhite@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A9CA873-B3B5-44B7-B2D9-296FFE988FC5@.microsoft.com...
> Yes I mean the System.Data.SqlClient provider.
> Inserting 4000 records into SQL Server 2000
> using the System.Data.SqlClient took 14 seconds
> using the System.Data.Odbc took 13 seconds
> using the System.Data.OleDb took 12 seconds
> I have tried running these tests in different orders also and get the same
results. I realise the times are close but I am concerned about
scalibility.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Robby White
> "David Schleifer [MSFT]" wrote:
SqlClient[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
performance[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Thanks for your help...
"David Schleifer [MSFT]" wrote:

> The insert operation is a fairly simple one, compared to other provider
> operations such as reading data, so it's hard for any one provider to exceed
> another once it's been reasonbly optimized. If you want to compare overall
> provider performance, whatever benchmark you choose would have to include a
> fair measure of read operations, which is one of the areas where SqlClient
> really outperforms the oledb managed provider.
> That said, when I tried a simple test with 16000 distinct insert operations
> (i.e. seperate round trip for each), I got results for SqlClient that were
> 1-2% better than the OleDb provider. I think it's fair to say that the two
> providers are basically equivalent for many types of insert operations, but
> overall for best performance you will be better off with SqlClient.
> If you are only interested in insert performance, you will probably want to
> check out the Whidbey release of .NET, where SqlClient supports a bulk load
> api.
>
> "Robby White" <RobbyWhite@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8A9CA873-B3B5-44B7-B2D9-296FFE988FC5@.microsoft.com...
> results. I realise the times are close but I am concerned about
> scalibility.
> SqlClient
> and
> to
> performance
>
>

.NET Performance - Native vs OLE DB

Using a local instance of SQL Server 2000 and .NET I have managed to insert
4000 rows across multiple tables using the OLE DB provider in 11 seconds but
when using the native provider it takes 13 seconds.
I was under the impression the native provider should enhance performance no
t decrease it? Why is this?
Thanks, RobbyBy native provider, do you mean System.Data.SqlClient? In general SqlClient
is a good deal faster than using the combination of System.Data.OleDb and
the native oledb provider for sql server. To comment further, I'd need to
know more about your scenario.
Thanks,
Dave
"Robby White" <Robby White@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:04E120F8-5A6E-42F9-80E9-8BBD32B887C3@.microsoft.com...
> Using a local instance of SQL Server 2000 and .NET I have managed to
insert 4000 rows across multiple tables using the OLE DB provider in 11
seconds but when using the native provider it takes 13 seconds.
> I was under the impression the native provider should enhance performance
not decrease it? Why is this?
> Thanks, Robby|||Yes I mean the System.Data.SqlClient provider.
Inserting 4000 records into SQL Server 2000
using the System.Data.SqlClient took 14 seconds
using the System.Data.Odbc took 13 seconds
using the System.Data.OleDb took 12 seconds
I have tried running these tests in different orders also and get the same r
esults. I realise the times are close but I am concerned about scalibility.
Robby White
"David Schleifer [MSFT]" wrote:

> By native provider, do you mean System.Data.SqlClient? In general SqlClien
t
> is a good deal faster than using the combination of System.Data.OleDb and
> the native oledb provider for sql server. To comment further, I'd need to
> know more about your scenario.
> Thanks,
> Dave
> "Robby White" <Robby White@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:04E120F8-5A6E-42F9-80E9-8BBD32B887C3@.microsoft.com...
> insert 4000 rows across multiple tables using the OLE DB provider in 11
> seconds but when using the native provider it takes 13 seconds.
> not decrease it? Why is this?
>
>|||The insert operation is a fairly simple one, compared to other provider
operations such as reading data, so it's hard for any one provider to exceed
another once it's been reasonbly optimized. If you want to compare overall
provider performance, whatever benchmark you choose would have to include a
fair measure of read operations, which is one of the areas where SqlClient
really outperforms the oledb managed provider.
That said, when I tried a simple test with 16000 distinct insert operations
(i.e. seperate round trip for each), I got results for SqlClient that were
1-2% better than the OleDb provider. I think it's fair to say that the two
providers are basically equivalent for many types of insert operations, but
overall for best performance you will be better off with SqlClient.
If you are only interested in insert performance, you will probably want to
check out the Whidbey release of .NET, where SqlClient supports a bulk load
api.
"Robby White" <RobbyWhite@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A9CA873-B3B5-44B7-B2D9-296FFE988FC5@.microsoft.com...
> Yes I mean the System.Data.SqlClient provider.
> Inserting 4000 records into SQL Server 2000
> using the System.Data.SqlClient took 14 seconds
> using the System.Data.Odbc took 13 seconds
> using the System.Data.OleDb took 12 seconds
> I have tried running these tests in different orders also and get the same
results. I realise the times are close but I am concerned about
scalibility.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Robby White
> "David Schleifer [MSFT]" wrote:
>
SqlClient[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
performance[vbcol=seagreen]|||Thanks for your help...
"David Schleifer [MSFT]" wrote:

> The insert operation is a fairly simple one, compared to other provider
> operations such as reading data, so it's hard for any one provider to exce
ed
> another once it's been reasonbly optimized. If you want to compare overall
> provider performance, whatever benchmark you choose would have to include
a
> fair measure of read operations, which is one of the areas where SqlClient
> really outperforms the oledb managed provider.
> That said, when I tried a simple test with 16000 distinct insert operation
s
> (i.e. seperate round trip for each), I got results for SqlClient that were
> 1-2% better than the OleDb provider. I think it's fair to say that the two
> providers are basically equivalent for many types of insert operations, bu
t
> overall for best performance you will be better off with SqlClient.
> If you are only interested in insert performance, you will probably want t
o
> check out the Whidbey release of .NET, where SqlClient supports a bulk loa
d
> api.
>
> "Robby White" <RobbyWhite@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8A9CA873-B3B5-44B7-B2D9-296FFE988FC5@.microsoft.com...
> results. I realise the times are close but I am concerned about
> scalibility.
> SqlClient
> and
> to
> performance
>
>