Is there a real performance gain when creating a view and selecting everything from it, compared to just running the TSQL that first "created" the view? Disconsider the cost of parsing the raw tsql-text.
Is a   select *  from myView   faster than the query itself to create the view (in order to have the same resultSet):  select * from ([query to create same resultSet as myView])   ?  It's not totally clear to me if the view uses some sort of caching making it faster compared to a simple query.
Calling Table with custom iterator Why is Sauron called "the Necromancer"? During the time period of The Hobbit, a character is mentioned called the Necromancer.  Radagast even (in the movie) specifically states that the Necromancer can "summon the spirits of the dead."  (It's been a while since I read the book so I don't know if this exact phrasing is used there, but given the name it seems reasonable.) This character is later revealed to be Sauron.  Since when can Sauron summon the spirits of the dead?  He can extend life ad infinitum, like Gollum's, for example, and he can twist people into half-alive monsters, like the Ringwraiths, and he himself seems impossible to kill so long as the One Ring remains, but I can't recall ever actually seeing him "summon" something that was once fully dead.  In fact, the only character I remember doing that was actually Aragorn, though he merely commanded them and didn't raise them himself.  Is this just an unfounded rumor about the power in Dol Guldur, some hushed-whisper nightmare that isn't actually an accurate description, or is there a reason he is called the Necromancer?  It seems like if Sauron could actually resurrect the dead, what little chance Middle Earth had of defeating his hordes would be long, long gone... If mastery of the Force is hereditary, how are the Jedi so numerous? How can I use color in a mathematical expression without losing horizontal spacing? Can someone explain __all__ in Python? I have been using Python more and more, and I keep seeing the variable __all__ set in different __init__.py files.  Can someone explain what this does? Do conjugate priors just lead to a posterior that is a modification of the parameters of the prior? We know, for example, that the conjugate relationship between the classic beta-binomial is as follows:  \begin{align}  y &amp;∼ \mathcal{Bin}(n,\ θ)  \\  θ &amp;∼ \mathcal{Beta}(α,\ β)  \\ θ|y &amp;∼ \mathcal{Beta}(y + α,\  n − y + β) \end{align}  Notice how the posterior is just a change in parameterization compared to the prior. Is the posterior of conjugate priors just a change in parameters? Meaning of completeness of a statistic? How to prove $ \prod_{d|n} d= n^{\frac{\tau (n)}{2}}$ how to prove:   $$ \prod_{d|n} d= n^{\frac{\tau (n)}{2}}$$   $\prod_{d|n} d$ is product of all of distinct positive divisor of $n$,  $\tau (n)$ is number (count)of all of positive divisor of $n$ How to get video duration, dimension and size in PHP? At the end of the movie we are shown      a bowl with berries in it and Seneca Crane looked like he was locked in a room with them and was supposed to eat them. Did he eat them?   Why did that happen? Is there a well-known term for the synonym or near-synonym "telescoping" words? This has been rattling around in the back of my mind for many years (way before Stack Exchange came into existence), so it's a relief to finally ask the question.  There are words that can be "contracted" by removing one or more letter(s) (without changing the order of the letters) to form a shorter word with the same meaning, or one very close to it.  The two strongest examples I can think of right now are:  rapscallion -> rascal  and  satiate -> sate  This is a slightly weaker example:  rapine -> rape  Even though "rape" has come, in modern usage, to refer almost exclusively to a sexual crime, it can still be used in a more literary (and purposefully anachronistic) sense to mean "the plunder and pillage of a country or region". In that sense, "rape" can be used in a similar fashion to "rapine"; in any case, the two words are etymologically related to the Latin rapere which is tied to the archaic usage.  Another weaker example:  transliterate -> translate  These words are near-synonyms, but there is a definite difference in their meaning. Still, I guess this pair would qualify, albeit in a looser sense.  I wanted to exclude some relatively trivial examples, such as:  (inflammable -> flammable)  (perambulate -> ambulate)  and so forth. So I've imposed the additional rule (arbitrary though it may seem) that the "stripped" letters must not come from the start or the end of the word, but only from its middle.  Acronyms and portmanteaus are also excluded, as are "slangier" contractions e.g.:  (modulator-demodulator -> modem)  (motor-hotel -> motel)  (certitude or certainty or certificate -> cert)  I guess the long-short forms of the same word would form a linguistic doublet. I've coined the term "telescoping word" to describe the long form that "collapses" into the short form with letter deletion sans anagramming.  My question is: has this phenomenon already been studied? If so, what name have authorities given it? Is there already an existing reference or resource on it? Thanks in advance.  (This is not a duplicate of , as that is asking about the more general phenomenon of words (not necessarily synonyms) occurring within larger words. In fact, the question specifically mentions "kangaroo word" and states that a broader scope is being sought.) Your UK visa application has been issued.      PLEASE DO NOT GO TO THE VISA APPLICATION CENTRE BEFORE THEY CONTACT YOU.      You will be contacted by the Visa Application Centre when your documents are ready for collection, or have been dispatched via courier where this is relevant.       You are reminded that you should avoid making travel plans until you have collected your passport, as the outcome of your visa application is not final until you receive your passport.      Please ensure you check the details on your visa when collecting your passport. If you need to contact us you can do so via our International Enquiry Service at www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi-outside-uk      Kind regards,      UK Visas and Immigration   British Embassy Abu Dhabi     Your UK visa application has been issued.   I know words like processed, forwarded, received, refused but never heard anything like that, so I am confused. How can I handle the warning of file_get_contents() function in PHP? Line of Bones to Travel and Conform to Curve (Train or snake following path) Divergence of $\vec{F} = \frac{\hat{\mathrm{r}}}{r^{2}}$ Consider the vector field $$\vec{\mathrm{F}} = \frac{\hat{\mathrm{r}}}{r^{2}},$$ then the divergence of this field is: $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\left(\frac{\hat{\mathrm{r}}}{r^{2}}\right) = 4\pi\delta^{3}(\mathrm{\vec{r}})$$  What is the proof of this relation? Multiplication of matrices &mdash; taking the dot product of the $i$th row of the first matrix and the $j$th column of the second to yield the $ij$th entry of the product &mdash; is not a very intuitive operation: if you were to ask someone how to mutliply two matrices, he probably would not think of that method. Of course, it turns out to be very useful: matrix multiplication is precisely the operation that represents composition of transformations. But it's not intuitive. So my question is where it came from. Who thought of multiplying matrices in that way, and why? (Was it perhaps multiplication of a matrix and a vector first? If so, who thought of multiplying them in that way, and why?) My question is intact no matter whether matrix multiplication was done this way only after it was used as representation of composition of transformations, or whether, on the contrary, matrix multiplication came first. (Again, I'm not asking about the utility of multiplying matrices as we do: this is clear to me. I'm asking a question about history.) find the number of injections/surjections I've been banging my head on this problem for some time now, and could really use help. Bear in mind I'm not very good at this sort of thing and am struggling to get by in class.  Problem:     Given $ \alpha : A \to B       \;\;\;\;\;   |A|=p \;\;\;\;|B|=q $      Find:         Number of Injections: $A \to B$   Number of Surjections: $ A \to B$    Prove that ∃ a bijection $A \to B$       $\Rightarrow$ p = q   find number of bijections: $A \to B$         I apologize for dropping such a big problem on you all, but I just can't get anywhere with this. Help?  EDIT: These answers are really helpful and I believe I've got down the number of Injections, but  we haven't gone through permutations or combinatorics in class so my understanding of it is really hamstrung. I'm unclear on the Stirling theorem as discussed here: , specifically the part where inclusion-exclusion comes into play. I'm not sure how to apply that, since right now I'm letting p = 4 and q = 3, so I don't know where inclusion-exclusion would be used (if at all!) since I don't know how elements would be missing. There is iron in our blood, which is magnetic. Roughly how strong would a magnet have to be to induce a noticeable attraction? It would be nice to know this for several distances. Also, do electromagnets that strong exist? Is there a destructor for Java? Is there a destructor for Java? I don't seem to be able to find any documentation on this. If there isn't, how can I achieve the same effect?  To make my question more specific, I am writing an application that deals with data and the specification say that there should be a 'reset' button that brings the application back to its original just launched state. However, all data have to be 'live' unless the application is closed or reset button is pressed.  Being usually a C/C++ programmer, I thought this would be trivial to implement. (And hence I planned to implement it last.) I structured my program such that all the 'reset-able' objects would be in the same class so that I can just destroy all 'live' objects when a reset button is pressed.  I was thinking if all I did was just to dereference the data and wait for the garbage collector to collect them, wouldn't there be a memory leak if my user repeatedly entered data and pressed the reset button? I was also thinking since Java is quite mature as a language, there should be a way to prevent this from happening or gracefully tackle this. Why is the charge naming convention wrong? I recently came to know about the Conventional Current vs. Electron Flow issue. Doing some search I found that the reason for this is that Benjamin Franklin made a mistake when naming positive and negative charges. There is even this little comic about that   My question is, how can a naming convention be wrong? Perhaps I don't understand what is the actual mistake here, I don't know. But I don't see how a naming convention could be wrong or right. There is no right and wrong about that. It could've been any other name, like charge A and charge B.  I'll appreciate anyone can help me understand what is wrong in all this.