Develop Reference

c# vs mysql: calling function in sql select statement vs fetching data and calling same function in c#

We are a product website with several products having guarantee. Guarantee is only applicable for few products with particular dealerids. The 2 tables are:
Product table with columns as id, name, cityId, dealerId, price. This table has all the products.
GuaranteeDealers table with column as dealerId. This has all dealer with guaranteed products.
We want to get all products with info if it is guaranteed or not. The query looks like:
APPROACH1: Get isGuaranteed from sql function to server(c#) side:
select id, name, cityId, dealerId, price, isGuaranteed = isGuaranteed( dealerId) from customers
isGuaranteed is a sql function that checks if dealerId is in the table guranteeDealers. If yes it returns 1 else 0.
I have 50000 products and 500 such dealers and this query takes too long to execute.
OR
APPROACH2: Get list of dealers and set isGuaranteed flag in c#(server) side.
select id, name, cityId, dealerId, price. Map these to c# list of products
select dealerId from guaranteeDealers table to c# list of dealers.
Iterate product records in c# and set the isGuaranteed flag by c# function that checks if product's dealerId is in c# list of guaranteeDealers.
This takes very less time compared to 1.
While both approaches look similar to me, can someone explain why it takes so long time to execute function in select statement in mysql? Also which is correct to do, approach 1 or 2?

Q: "why it takes so long time to execute function in select statement in mysql?"
In terms of performance, executing a correlated subquery 50,000 times will eat our lunch, and if we're not careful, it will eat our lunchbox too.
That subquery will be executed for each and every row returned by the outer query. That's like executing 50,000 separate, individual SELECT statements. And that's going to take time.
Hiding a correlated subquery inside a MySQL stored program (function) doesn't help. That just adds overhead on each execution of the subquery, and makes things slower. If we strip out the function and bring that subquery inline, we are probably looking at something like this:
SELECT p.id
, p.name
, p.cityId
, p.dealerId
, p.price
, IFNULL( ( SELECT 1
FROM guaranteeDealers d
WHERE d.dealerId = p.dealerID
LIMIT 1
)
,0) AS isGuarantee
FROM products p
ORDER BY ...
For each and every row returned from products (that isn't filtered out by a predicate e.g. condition in the WHERE clause), this is essentially telling MySQL to execute a separate SELECT statement. Run a query to look to see if the dealerID is found in the guaranteeDealers table. And that happens for each row.
If the outer query is only returning a couple of rows, then that's only a couple of extra SELECT statements to execute, and we aren't really going to notice the extra time. But when we return tens (or hundreds) of thousands of rows, that starts to add up. And it gets expensive, in terms of the total amount of time all those query executions take.
And if we "hide" that subquery in a MySQL stored program (function), that adds more overhead, introducing a bunch of context switches. From query executing in the database context, calling a function that switches over to the stored program engine which executes the function, which then needs to run a database query, which switches back to the database context to execute the query and return a resultset, switching back to the stored program environment to process the resultset and return a value, and then switching back to the original database context, to get the returned value. If we have to do that a couple of times, no big whoop. Repeat that tens of thousands of times, and that overhead is going to add up.
(Note that native MySQL built-in functions don't have this same context switching overhead. The native functions are compiled code that execute within the database context. Which is a big reason we favor native functions over MySQL stored programs.)
If we want improved performance, we need to ditch the processing RBAR (row by agonizing row), which gets excruciatingly slow for large sets. We need to approach the problem set-wise rather than row-wise.
We can tell MySQL what set to return, and let it figure out the most efficient way to return that. Rather than us round tripping back and forth to the database, executing individual SQL statements to get little bits of the set piecemeal, using instructions that dictate how MySQL should prepare the set.
In answer to the question
Q: "which approach is correct"
both approaches are "correct" is as much as they return the set we're after.
The second approach is "better" in that it significantly reduces the number of SELECT statements that need to be executed (2 statements rather than 50,001 statements).
In terms of the best approach, we are usually better off letting MySQL do the "matching" of rows, rather than doing the matching in client code. (Why unnecessarily clutter up our code doing an operation that can usually be much more efficiently accomplished in the database.) Yes, sometimes we need to do the matching in our code. And occasionally it turns out to be faster.
But sometimes, we can write just one SELECT statement that specifies the set we want returned, and let MySQL have a go at it. And if it's slow, we can do some tuning, looking at the execution plan, making sure suitable indexes are available, and tweaking the query.
Given the information in the question about the set to be returned, and assuming that dealerId is unique in the guaranteeDealers table. If our "test" is whether a matching row exists in the guaranteeDealers table, we can use an OUTER JOIN operation, and an expression in the SELECT list that returns a 0 or 1, depending on whether a matching row was found.
SELECT p.id
, p.name
, p.cityId
, p.dealerId
, p.price
, IF(d.dealerId IS NULL,0,1) AS isGuarantee
FROM products p
LEFT
JOIN guaranteeDealers d
ON d.dealerId = p.dealerId
ORDER BY ...
For optimal performance, we are going to want to have suitable indexes defined. At a mimimum (if there isn't already such an index defined)
ON guaranteeDealers (dealerId)
If there are also other tables that are involved in producing the result we are after, then we want to also involve that table in the query we execute. That will give the MySQL optimizer a chance to come up with the most efficient plan to return the entire set. And not constrain MySQL to performing individual operations to be return bits piecemeal.

select id, name, cityId, customers.dealerId, price,
isGuaranteed = guaranteeDealers.dealerId is not null
from customers left join guaranteeDealers
on guaranteeDealers.dealerId = customets.dealerId
No need to call a function.
Note I have used customers because that is the table you used in your question - although I suspect you might have meant products.

Approach 1 is the better one because it reduces the size of the resultset being transferred from the database server to the application server. Its performance problem is caused by the isGuaranteed function, which is being executed once per row (of the customers table, which looks like it might be a typo). An approach like this would be much more performant:
select p.id, p.name, p.cityId, p.dealerId, p.price, gd.IsGuaranteed is not null
from Product p
left join GuaranteeDealers gd on p.dealerId = gd.dealerId

Calling SQL select statement from C# thousands of times and is very time consuming. Is there a better way?

I get a list of ID's and amounts from a excel file (thousands of id's and corresponding amounts). I then need to check the database to see if each ID exists and if it does check to make sure the amount in the DB is greater or equal to that of the amount from the excel file.
Problem is running this select statement upwards of 6000 times and return the values I need takes a long time. Even at a 1/2 of a second a piece it will take about an hour to do all the selects. (I normally dont get more than 5 results max back)
Is there a faster way to do this?
Is it possible to somehow pass all the ID's at once and just make 1 call and get the massive collection?
I have tried using SqlDataReaders and SqlDataAdapters but they seem to be about the same (too long either way)
General idea of how this works below
for (int i = 0; i < ID.Count; i++)
{
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("select Amount, Client, Pallet from table where ID = #ID and Amount > 0;", sqlCon);
cmd.Parameters.Add("#ID", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ID[i];
SqlDataAdapter da = new SqlDataAdapter(cmd);
da.Fill(dataTable);
da.Dispose();
}

Instead of a long in list (difficult to parameterise and has a number of other inefficiencies regarding execution plans: compilation time, plan reuse, and the plans themselves) you can pass all the values in at once via a table valued parameter.
See arrays and lists in SQL Server for more details.
Generally I make sure to give the table type a primary key and use option (recompile) to get the most appropriate execution plans.

Combine all the IDs together into a single large IN clause, so it reads like:
select Amount, Client, Pallet from table where ID in (1,3,5,7,9,11) and Amount > 0;

"I have tried using SqlDataReaders and SqlDataAdapters"
It sounds like you might be open to other APIs. Using Linq2SQL or Linq2Entities:
var someListIds = new List<int> { 1,5,6,7 }; //imagine you load this from where ever
db.MyTable.Where( mt => someListIds.Contains(mt.ID) );
This is safe in terms of avoiding potential SQL injection vulnerabilities and will generate a "in" clause. Note however the size of the someListIds can be so large that the SQL query generated exceeds limits of query length, but the same is true of any other technique involving the IN clause. You can easily workaround that by partitioning lists into large chunks, and still be tremendously better than a query per ID.

Use Table-Valued Parameters
With them you can pass a c# datatable with your values into a stored procedure as a resultset/table which you can join to and do a simple:
SELECT *
FROM YourTable
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FORM InputResultSet WHERE YourConditions)

Use the in operator. Your problem is very common and it has a name: N+1 performance problem
Where are you getting the IDs from? If it is from another query, then consider grouping them into one.

Rather than performing a separate query for every single ID that you have, execute one query to get the amount of every single ID that you want to check (or if you have too many IDs to put in one query, then batch them into batches of a few thousand).

Import the data directly to SQL Server. Use stored procedure to output the data you need.
If you must consume it in the app tier... use xml datatype to pass into a stored procedure.

You can import the data from the excel file into SQL server as a table (using the import data wizard). Then you can perform a single query in SQL server where you join this table to your lookup table, joining on the ID field. There's a few more steps to this process, but it's a lot neater than trying to concatenate all the IDs into a much longer query.
I'm assuming a certain amount of access privileges to the server here, but this is what I'd do given the access I normally have. I'm also assuming this is a one off task. If not, the import of the data to SQL server can be done programmatically as well

IN clause has limits, so if you go with that approach, make sure a batch size is used to process X amount of Ids at a time, otherwise you will hit another issue.
A #Robertharvey has noted, if there are not a lot of IDs and there are no transactions occurring, then just pull all the Ids at once into memory into a dictionary like object and process them there. Six thousand values is not alot and a single select could return all those back within a few seconds.
Just remember that if another process is updating the data, your local cached version may be stale.

There is another way to handle this, Making XML of IDs and pass it to procedure. Here is code for procedure.
IF OBJECT_ID('GetDataFromDatabase') IS NOT NULL
BEGIN
DROP PROCEDURE GetDataFromDatabase
END
GO
--Definition
CREATE PROCEDURE GetDataFromDatabase
#xmlData XML
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #DocHandle INT
DECLARE #idList Table (id INT)
EXEC SP_XML_PREPAREDOCUMENT #DocHandle OUTPUT, #xmlData;
INSERT INTO #idList (id) SELECT x.id FROM OPENXML(#DocHandle, '//data', 2) WITH ([id] INT) x
EXEC SP_XML_removeDOCUMENT #DocHandle ;
--SELECT * FROM #idList
SELECT t.Amount, t.Client, t.Pallet FROM yourTable t INNER JOIN #idList x ON t.id = x.id and t.Amount > 0;
END
GO
--Uses
EXEC GetDataFromDatabase #xmlData = '<root><data><id>1</id></data><data><id>2</id></data></root>'
You can put any logic in procedure. You can pass id, amount also via XML. You can pass huge list of ids via XML.

SqlDataAdapter objects too heavy for that.
Firstly, using stored procedures, it will be faster.
Secondly, use the group operation, for this pass as a parameter to a list of identifiers on the side of the database, run a query on these parameters, and return the processed result.
It will quickly and efficiently, as all data processing logic is on the side of the database server

You can select the whole resultset (or join multiple 'limited' result sets) and save it all to DataTable Then you can do selects and updates (if needed) directly on datatable. Then plug new data back... Not super efficient memory wise, but often is very good (and only) solution when working in bulk and need it to be very fast.
So if you have thousands of records, it might take couple of minutes to populate all records into the DataTable
then you can search your table like this:
string findMatch = "id = value";
DataRow[] rowsFound = dataTable.Select(findMatch);
Then just loop foreach (DataRow dr in rowsFound)

How to reduce the execution time in stored procedure using mysql

i am working on asp.net3.5 and mysql, now my problem is search page enter the text click the search button fetch the records and bind the gridview , it taking more time(like 1min) but i can reduce the execution time how it possible in front end or back end please give me any idea about that.
thanking u
hemanth

For tuning the performance of a SP we need to know how much resources
it is using and how much time it takes in execution.
1) Look the queries performence using Execution Plan. After
find the Queries, just check the Index(for table used in
query) and look the join conditions between tables in the
query. - This is way we need to approch to tune the SP.
2) we need to use tablename with (nolock) in our select
statements so that it does not create delay if other person
is updating the table at the same time it will show last
updated table recordset
3) if we dont need that much the database server to return
the number of records affected after executing any dml
statements which actually reduces the performance ,we can
use set nocount on -set nocount off before and after
writing the sql query,
4) we can create lesser join statements if we can use
subqueries

Try getting lesser values on front end.
Try getting them using AJAX which are Ajax benifit
Try optimizing your SQL QUERY
This link will guide how Store Procedure Reduces Time

Without any sample code, there's not much we can work on. But since you asked for ideas...
I can think of two possible reasons why your page loads slow:
SQL side of things - Teez basically said what needs to be said.
Display of results - How are you binding to the gridview? Are there extra database calls when you're binding? Are you performing pagination? How?

You can improve performance by optimizing your query.
Select only relevant columns instead of select *
Use Join if large number of records are there other wise use sub query (For such cases)
Query Optimization

how to improve SQL query performance in my case

I have a table, schema is very simple, an ID column as unique primary key (uniqueidentifier type) and some other nvarchar columns. My current goal is, for 5000 inputs, I need to calculate what ones are already contained in the table and what are not. Tht inputs are string and I have a C# function which converts string into uniqueidentifier (GUID). My logic is, if there is an existing ID, then I treat the string as already contained in the table.
My question is, if I need to find out what ones from the 5000 input strings are already contained in DB, and what are not, what is the most efficient way?
BTW: My current implementation is, convert string to GUID using C# code, then invoke/implement a store procedure which query whether an ID exists in database and returns back to C# code.
My working environment: VSTS 2008 + SQL Server 2008 + C# 3.5.

My first instinct would be to pump your 5000 inputs into a single-column temporary table X, possibly index it, and then use:
SELECT X.thecol
FROM X
JOIN ExistingTable USING (thecol)
to get the ones that are present, and (if both sets are needed)
SELECT X.thecol
FROM X
LEFT JOIN ExistingTable USING (thecol)
WHERE ExistingTable.thecol IS NULL
to get the ones that are absent. Worth benchmarking, at least.
Edit: as requested, here are some good docs & tutorials on temp tables in SQL Server. Bill Graziano has a simple intro covering temp tables, table variables, and global temp tables. Randy Dyess and SQL Master discuss performance issue for and against them (but remember that if you're getting performance problems you do want to benchmark alternatives, not just go on theoretical considerations!-).
MSDN has articles on tempdb (where temp tables are kept) and optimizing its performance.

Step 1. Make sure you have a problem to solve. Five thousand inserts isn't a lot to insert one at a time in a lot of contexts.
Are you certain that the simplest way possible isn't sufficient? What performance issues have you measured so far?

What do you need to do with those entries that do or don't exist in your table??
Depending on what you need, maybe the new MERGE statement in SQL Server 2008 could fit your bill - update what's already there, insert new stuff, all wrapped neatly into a single SQL statement. Check it out!
http://blogs.conchango.com/davidportas/archive/2007/11/14/SQL-Server-2008-MERGE.aspx
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/articles/dba/SQL_Server_2008_MERGE_Statement_p1.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/brunoterkaly/archive/2008/11/12/sql-server-2008-merge-capability.aspx
Your statement would look something like this:
MERGE INTO
(your target table) AS t
USING
(your source table, e.g. a temporary table) AS s
ON t.ID = s.ID
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN -- new rows does not exist in base table
....(do whatever you need to do)
WHEN MATCHED THEN -- row exists in base table
... (do whatever else you need to do)
;
To make this really fast, I would load the "new" records from e.g. a TXT or CSV file into a temporary table in SQL server using BULK INSERT:
BULK INSERT YourTemporaryTable
FROM 'c:\temp\yourimportfile.csv'
WITH
(
FIELDTERMINATOR =',',
ROWTERMINATOR =' |\n'
)
BULK INSERT combined with MERGE should give you the best performance you can get on this planet :-)
Marc
PS: here's a note from TechNet on MERGE performance and why it's faster than individual statements:
In SQL Server 2008, you can perform multiple data manipulation language (DML) operations in a single statement by using the MERGE statement. For example, you may need to synchronize two tables by inserting, updating, or deleting rows in one table based on differences found in the other table. Typically, this is done by executing a stored procedure or batch that contains individual INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE statements. However, this means that the data in both the source and target tables are evaluated and processed multiple times; at least once for each statement.
By using the MERGE statement, you can replace the individual DML statements with a single statement. This can improve query performance because the operations are performed within a single statement, therefore, minimizing the number of times the data in the source and target tables are processed. However, performance gains depend on having correct indexes, joins, and other considerations in place. This topic provides best practice recommendations to help you achieve optimal performance when using the MERGE statement.

Try to ensure you end up running only one query - i.e. if your solution consists of running 5000 queries against the database, that'll probably be the biggest consumer of resources for the operation.
If you can insert the 5000 IDs into a temporary table, you could then write a single query to find the ones that don't exist in the database.

If you want simplicity, since 5000 records is not very many, then from C# just use a loop to generate an insert statement for each of the strings you want to add to the table. Wrap the insert in a TRY CATCH block. Send em all up to the server in one shot like this:
BEGIN TRY
INSERT INTO table (theCol, field2, field3)
SELECT theGuid, value2, value3
END TRY BEGIN CATCH END CATCH
BEGIN TRY
INSERT INTO table (theCol, field2, field3)
SELECT theGuid, value2, value3
END TRY BEGIN CATCH END CATCH
BEGIN TRY
INSERT INTO table (theCol, field2, field3)
SELECT theGuid, value2, value3
END TRY BEGIN CATCH END CATCH
if you have a unique index or primary key defined on your string GUID, then the duplicate inserts will fail. Checking ahead of time to see if the record does not exist just duplicates work that SQL is going to do anyway.
If performance is really important, then consider downloading the 5000 GUIDS to your local station and doing all the analysis localy. Reading 5000 GUIDS should take much less than 1 second. This is simpler than bulk importing to a temp table (which is the only way you will get performance from a temp table) and doing an update using a join to the temp table.

Since you are using Sql server 2008, you could use Table-valued parameters. It's a way to provide a table as a parameter to a stored procedure.
Using ADO.NET you could easily pre-populate a DataTable and pass it as a SqlParameter.
Steps you need to perform:
Create a custom Sql Type
CREATE TYPE MyType AS TABLE
(
UniqueId INT NOT NULL,
Column NVARCHAR(255) NOT NULL
)
Create a stored procedure which accepts the Type
CREATE PROCEDURE spInsertMyType
#Data MyType READONLY
AS
xxxx
Call using C#
SqlCommand insertCommand = new SqlCommand(
"spInsertMyType", connection);
insertCommand.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
SqlParameter tvpParam =
insertCommand.Parameters.AddWithValue(
"#Data", dataReader);
tvpParam.SqlDbType = SqlDbType.Structured;
Links: Table-valued Parameters in Sql 2008

Definitely do not do it one-by-one.
My preferred solution is to create a stored procedure with one parameter that can take and XML in the following format:
<ROOT>
<MyObject ID="60EAD98F-8A6C-4C22-AF75-000000000000">
<MyObject ID="60EAD98F-8A6C-4C22-AF75-000000000001">
....
</ROOT>
Then in the procedure with the argument of type NCHAR(MAX) you convert it to XML, after what you use it as a table with single column (lets call it #FilterTable). The store procedure looks like:
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.sp_MultipleParams(#FilterXML NVARCHAR(MAX))
AS BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON
DECLARE #x XML
SELECT #x = CONVERT(XML, #FilterXML)
-- temporary table (must have it, because cannot join on XML statement)
DECLARE #FilterTable TABLE (
"ID" UNIQUEIDENTIFIER
)
-- insert into temporary table
-- #important: XML iS CaSe-SenSiTiv
INSERT #FilterTable
SELECT x.value('#ID', 'UNIQUEIDENTIFIER')
FROM #x.nodes('/ROOT/MyObject') AS R(x)
SELECT o.ID,
SIGN(SUM(CASE WHEN t.ID IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE 1 END)) AS FoundInDB
FROM #FilterTable o
LEFT JOIN dbo.MyTable t
ON o.ID = t.ID
GROUP BY o.ID
END
GO
You run it as:
EXEC sp_MultipleParams '<ROOT><MyObject ID="60EAD98F-8A6C-4C22-AF75-000000000000"/><MyObject ID="60EAD98F-8A6C-4C22-AF75-000000000002"/></ROOT>'
And your results look like:
ID FoundInDB
------------------------------------ -----------
60EAD98F-8A6C-4C22-AF75-000000000000 1
60EAD98F-8A6C-4C22-AF75-000000000002 0

Can I get the rowcount before executing a stored procedure?

I have some complex stored procedures that may return many thousands of rows, and take a long time to complete.
Is there any way to find out how many rows are going to be returned before the query executes and fetches the data?
This is with Visual Studio 2005, a Winforms application and SQL Server 2005.

You mentioned your stored procedures take a long time to complete. Is the majority of the time taken up during the process of selecting the rows from the database or returning the rows to the caller?
If it is the latter, maybe you can create a mirror version of your SP that just gets the count instead of the actual rows. If it is the former, well, there isn't really that much you can do since it is the act of finding the eligible rows which is slow.

A solution to your problem might be to re-write the stored procedure so that it limits the result set to some number, like:
SELECT TOP 1000 * FROM tblWHATEVER
in SQL Server, or
SELECT * FROM tblWHATEVER WHERE ROWNUM <= 1000
in Oracle. Or implement a paging solution so that the result set of each call is acceptably small.

make a stored proc to count the rows first.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table

Unless there's some aspect of the business logic of you app that allows calculating this, no. The database it going to have to do all the where & join logic to figure out how line rows, and that's the vast majority of the time spend in the SP.

You can't get the rowcount of a procedure without executing the procedure.
You could make a different procedure that accepts the same parameters, the purpose of which is to tell you how many rows the other procedure should return. However, the steps required by this procedure would normally be so similar to those of the main procedure that it should take just about as long as just executing the main procedure.

You would have to write a different version of the stored procedure to get a row count. This one would probably be much faster because you could eliminate joining tables which you aren't filtered against, remove ordering, etc. For example if your stored proc executed the sql such as:
select firstname, lastname, email, orderdate from
customer inner join productorder on customer.customerid=productorder.productorderid
where orderdate>#orderdate order by lastname, firstname;
your counting version would be something like:
select count(*) from productorder where orderdate>#orderdate;

Not in general.
Through knowledge about the operation of the stored procedure, you may be able to get either an estimate or an accurate count (for instance, if the "core" or "base" table of the query is able to be quickly calculated, but it is complex joins and/or summaries which drive the time upwards).
But you would have to call the counting SP first and then the data SP or you could look at using a multiple result set SP.

It could take as long to get a row count as to get the actual data, so I wouldn't advodate performing a count in most cases.
Some possibilities:
1) Does SQL Server expose its query optimiser findings in some way? i.e. can you parse the query and then obtain an estimate of the rowcount? (I don't know SQL Server).
2) Perhaps based on the criteria the user gives you can perform some estimations of your own. For example, if the user enters 'S%' in the customer surname field to query orders you could determine that that matches 7% (say) of the customer records, and extrapolate that the query may return about 7% of the order records.

Going on what Tony Andrews said in his answer, you can get an estimated query plan of the call to your query with:
SET showplan_text OFF
GO
SET showplan_all on
GO
--Replace with call you your stored procedure
select * from MyTable
GO
SET showplan_all ofF
GO
This should return a table, or many tables which will let you get the estimated row count of your query.

You need to analyze the returned data set, to determine what is a logical, (meaningful) primary key for the result set that is being returned. In general this WILL be much faster than the complete procedure, because the server is not constructing a result set from data in all the columns of each row of each table, it is simply counting the rows... In general, it may not even need to read the actual table rows off disk to do this, it may simply need to count index nodes...
Then write another SQL statement that only includes the tables necessary to generate those key columns (Hopefully this is a subset of the tables in the main sql query), and the same where clause with the same filtering predicate values...
Then add another Optional parameter to the Stored Proc called, say, #CountsOnly, with a default of false (0) as so...
Alter Procedure <storedProcName>
#param1 Type,
-- Other current params
#CountsOnly TinyInt = 0
As
Set NoCount On
If #CountsOnly = 1
Select Count(*)
From TableA A
Join TableB B On etc. etc...
Where < here put all Filtering predicates >
Else
<Here put old SQL That returns complete resultset with all data>
Return 0
You can then just call the same stored proc with #CountsOnly set equal to 1 to just get the count of records. Old code that calls the proc would still function as it used to, since the parameter value is set to default to false (0), if it is not included

It's at least technically possible to run a procedure that puts the result set in a temporary table. Then you can find the number of rows before you move the data from server to application and would save having to create the result set twice.
But I doubt it's worth the trouble unless creating the result set takes a very long time, and in that case it may be big enough that the temp table would be a problem. Almost certainly the time to move the big table over the network will be many times what is needed to create it.