http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2008/04/15/sql-server-procedure-cache-more-relief-on-the-way.aspxIf you've read many of my blog posts, you know that I consider lack of procedure cache control to be a major SQL Server pain point . Badly written apps that use non-parameterized ad hoc queries can quickly flood SQL Server's memory pools and bring theenCommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2008/04/15/sql-server-procedure-cache-more-relief-on-the-way.aspx#6247Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:42:25 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:6247Andrew Kelly<p>Yup, they finally listened to us after all these years of &quot;discussing&quot; the topic:).</p> http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2008/04/15/sql-server-procedure-cache-more-relief-on-the-way.aspx#6601Fri, 02 May 2008 19:23:51 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:6601Gail Shaw<p>That's good to hear. Do you know if there's any similar fix for the token store? </p> http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2008/04/15/sql-server-procedure-cache-more-relief-on-the-way.aspx#30364Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:37:14 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:30364Ranga Narasimhan<p>We had this issue and almost brought down the server to its knees. Using sp_executesql with parameterization is good, but in our case, the sql statement itself was built based on the stored proc paremeters. Based on the sort condition, the order by clause differs. In this case even parameterization will not work I think. Is this considered adhoc query or not, since it comes from a stored procedure. As usual developers still think that dynamic sql is the only way to go in this part of the application where user options changes the stored proc query.</p>