Re: Pass-thru SQL performance vs Stored Proc

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

From: Louis Davidson (dr_dontspamme_sql_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/13/05 

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:13:02 -0600

16 years? Has it even been around that long? I know I got (what I think
was) version 1.0 right before gettting 4.2, and that was only like 10 or 11
years ago.

As far as Dynamic SQL, every case where I thought it would be better was
deemed "too hard" by the programmers and they made me put it in a procedure.
They were always keen to do the trivial without stored procedures however,
so I genereally have had to fight a lot with "other-tier" programmers :)

As for the future, I completely agree with you there. Didn't mention it
because it isn't yet something to discuss too much, but the power of the
functional language supporing the relational language (when used properly)
is going to be great, and eliminate this sort of concern.

Thanks, 

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Davidson - drsql@hotmail.com
SQL Server MVP
Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design - 
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested in 
consulting services.  All other replies may be ignored :)
"Max" <maxl@msn.com> wrote in message 
news:1105645155.446123.270970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> In 16 years of using or supporting SQL Server for approximately 1,000
> different applications, only ~ 8 years during which Dynamic SQL was a
> reasonable choice, I have yet to see a case where storing and executing
> straight SQL from an application makes more sense than using stored
> procedures.  Finally, SQL 2005 eliminates every conceivable argument
> for storing business logic outside the database - even .NET assemblies
> are tied to stored procedures.
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: basic question
    ... Currently we have are doing calculations via stored procedures ... in which case *I* would like to have them run on the SQL server ... procs are doing. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: Frage zu View-Tabellen
    ... eigenes Element in SQL. ... Erweiterungen sind indizierte Sichten (SQL Server 2000), ... Performance und vom Speicherverbrauch ein Unterschied, ob ich eine Anfrage auf eine View-Tabelle oder eine Stored Procedure schicke? ... Bei Stored Procedures wird der kompilierte Ausführungsplan im Cache gespeichert, der bei Zugriffen auf die View in der Regel neu erstellt wird. ...
    (microsoft.public.de.sqlserver)
  • How do I do Paging through a large dataset via Stored Procedures
    ... Paging by dynamically altering the SQL Query ... Create stored procedures ... SELECT * FROM STUDENTS ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: Stored Procedure vs direct execute SQL
    ... another of dynamic sql (otherwise SQL Server can't take advantage of ... You seem to be saying that SQL Server can use ... To say that stored procedures are "far ... > select listingId, listingName from Property ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Dynamic SQL
    ... Also stored procedures eliminate code redundancy... ... SQL Server MVP ... > Dynamic SQL versus stored procedures is really a minimal discussion. ... > With only minimal modification you could make your middle tier use stored ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)