No more stored procedures
-
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
CodeProject: 'I mean where else would you rather be pissed off?' - Jeremy Falcon
-
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
Your bosses idea that possible changes of the back end databases is a reason to go with in line SQL is flawed. This is all the more reason to use stored procedures. What if you use a function in your query that does not exist on the other db platform? This is easy to get around if you use SPs but if all your SQL is compiled guess what.... Is your boss a developer?
Jim Blexrude Senior Software Developer/Consultant
-
hmmm... maybe the semi-colon is not general across databases. Perhaps detect if SQL Server before using it otherwise you may have to use it. Also... is @@SCOPE_IDENTITY database general? If not, you may have to have 'dialects' for different databases... e.g. http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/read/43794.htm
@@SCOPE_IDENTITY doesn't even work on SQL Server. It should be SCOPE_IDENTITY(). (It's a system function, not a global variable.)
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
-
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
Excuse to the others but indeed this IS the dumbest thing I ever heard. Please post your supervisors email for us and we will take care of this for you.... (giggle)
-
James R. Twine wrote:
Not really - we have had little utilities like strings for quite some time now. If you have enough permissions to launch the application, you have enough to dump the binary into an editor and/or get the strings out of it. Unless you encode the strings in some manner, they are in the binary in plaintext.
I can't tell you the number of clients over the years that have messed with databases that we include with our software. They see it, have a little experience and want to mess with it. Stored procedures are easily messed with by end users, dynamic sql isn't. The number one security threat for commercial software developers is protecting users from themselves, external threats are a distant second.
-
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
I think what is missed in the whole discussion so far is to criticise the thinking that developers can program for unknown and unseen circumstances. This is like saying 'make something but I'll give you the requirements later'. If the company is going to re-tool at some point, make sure you architect your business logic into a middle tier so that its less effort to swap out your data layer. I worked at a company that moved from MS SQL over to Oracle. It was very easy to see that we put way to much logic in the stored procedures. Either way, if the company decides to swap out one technology for another there is going to be significant cost. There is no avoiding it.
Joel Palmer Application Developer
-
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
-
Most major version control systems such as SourceSafe, CVS and PVS allow for version control of the underlying script. In fact, SQL Server 2005 is tightly integrated on a project basis with SourceSafe out of the box. So I do not understand this as a reason, but hey to each his own.
-
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
Only using clientside SQL open you up to the possibility of SQL injection attacks!!!
-
hmmm... maybe the semi-colon is not general across databases. Perhaps detect if SQL Server before using it otherwise you may have to use it. Also... is @@SCOPE_IDENTITY database general? If not, you may have to have 'dialects' for different databases... e.g. http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/read/43794.htm
I believe @@SCOPE_IDENTITY is not database general. Does your boss know this? If you really want to be database independant, you'll have to use 'dialects' as mfhobbs suggested or use an OR mapping tool such as nhibernate.
-
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
Wow! Your question has started a huge debate on so many related topics. I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm sure some of what I say will just be a rehash, but here's my 2 cents: 1) To be truely DB agnostic you need a Data Access Layer written for each Db. Your sample is proof of that (@@IDENTITY and SCOPE_IDENTITY()). 2) Stored procedures DO reduce network traffic, but the network is where the load is seen, not the database. Given the exact same resultset, a batch of 10 lines multiplied over 100s of queries per second WILL create a greater network load than using stored procedures. However, as long as your dynamic queries use parameters you will not see any significant load on the db. This however brings us back to #1 - Sql Server Parameters use @paramName while other vendors just use '?' (I have to admit I haven't used other vendors, this is just based on sample code I've seen). Anyhow, using stored procedures vs. dynamic sql is simply a design choice. Which must be weighed against your program's requirements. But your 'dynamic' sql should ALWAYS use parameters. The difference between using parameters and not using them is a factor of as much as 200 in favor of parameters. 3) using @@IDENTITY in the same batch runs the risk of pulling the wrong identity value and increases dramatically when run in a separate batch. 4) Do your web apps have any use to third parties? That's the first question to be asked. Unless your company is intending to change their business model and start adding technical support and investing time and money into deploying and supporting web applications on external systems and pulling resources away from your core functions, I don't see the point in even addressing the issue. I would say in most cases, applications written for internal use and then retro-fitted for use by third parties are begging for problems. I'm not just referring to portability issues here, I'm talking about culture. Applications are written with specific groups of end users in mind, in this case your internal company culture. Which means the UI is designed with your company in mind and the way they use the application. If a different company starts using your application they have different goals in mind and will want to use the application in different ways than you do based on their business processes and how they want to integrate with their existing IT systems.
-
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
Don't get your hopes up that inline SQL will just run on any database you want. Even coding directly to the ANSI specification (92, 99, or 03) does not guarantee you can just point your app to any database and have it work or work without any issues. (like performance issues) Even in your simple example, "select @@identity" will work on MSSQL databases. Just like Java: "Write once, test everywhere...." You might want to think about abstracting your data access into different interfaces. Something like having an MSSQL interface, a Access DB interface, a MySQL interface. This, combined with a good unit testing plan, can get you close to DB independence...
Cheers
-
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
Who is this idiot? Somebody needs to have a talk with him. Using stored procs is the only way to make sure that the application doesn't have to be re-designed when you change database vendors. A stored proc call has the same syntax on almost all servers. The instructions within those procs may be vastly different depending on the flavour of SQL. In order to keep things consistent when you change database vendors, you simply make sure the new database has the same stored procs and that those procs return the same datasets as the old ones. This makes the change of database vendor *transparent* to your applications, which is what you want. Without procs, you have to rewrite and recompile the application. With procs, you can make database installer/setup scripts for many DB vendors and simply install the databases with that, while your application remains the same for all installations. This is pretty simple. Even your idiot boss should understand it. There's about 500 other reasons to use stored procs, performance and security being the big ones, but your boss's reasoning is just plain wrong. This is not a case of a difference of opinion - what he's saying is incorrect. You might not mention this to him, but not all vendors support SQL user-functions, so he's right about those, but not about stored procs since almost all DB vendors support those (even MySQL has it now). If he's really reluctant after having his reasoning corrected, you might look for another job. There are people out there who deliberately try to make things harder on developers. Typically they are expert programmers with a sadistic streak, so they know they are asking you to do something wrong. Don't tolerate this treatment... if bosses don't respect your expertise, then it reflects badly on them, and eventually someone will notice that he's asking employees to waste time and money, simply so he can assert his authority. Weak... very weak.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Stored procedures improve performance
To who? Not the end user, that's been proven time and again so often that I'm stunned to see some people here still contributing to that fallacy.
No it has not. On the Yahoo SQL mailing list, we argued about this for a while, then someone did some tests. Stored procs ALWAYS performed faster. The difference was small, but there was a difference. Test it yourself before you go around saying things like this. I think I know the real reason people don't like stored procs, and it has nothing to do with performance, it has to do with lazy and ignorant programmers. Overall, it doesn't bother me a whole lot. My apps will be better than yours. Mine will be more secure, perform better, and be more portable and easier to update. I'm happy to compete with you on that playing field. -- modified at 12:49 Thursday 4th January, 2007 It's possible that it's RTT that's making it slower, and it definitely contributes, but RTT still hurts performance. Saying it's not the proc itself that's hurting things is beside the point, it's still slower.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
After I posted that I realized I should have written "stored procedures CAN improve performance" since I actually know of cases where they cause lower performance (which I eluded to in a later sentence.) (I modified my original post with a note indicated that I had done so.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I actually know of cases where they cause lower performance
Can you post an example? I've been doing this for many years and I have never seen that happen except in cases where the stored proc was horribly written. Embedded/dynamic SQL can be poorly written as well.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
I've just recieved an email from my supervisor, asking me not to use any server-side functions, stored procedures, views or queries and to keep all database coding within the code itself - just in case we need to change databases or sell to a client that doesn't use the same database that we do. We write in-house web apps (classic ASP and C#) using SQL Server 2000 and have so far sold a total of zero applications to third parties (We are not a software house - just a small IT department serving the rest of the company). Pseudo-code for the offending stored procedure that prompted the new policy is shown below:
begin insert data into table select scope_identity() as userid endI was instructed to change it to two separate calls from within the code:recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )Any thoughts? I have mine, but I'd be interested in hearing from others...
The StartPage Randomizer | The Timelapse Project | A Random Web Page
There are many good reasons why you should use stored procedures over dynamic sql. I'd recommend that you continue to use stored procedures - they can actually isolate your application from changes to the database schema. If you embed code like this in your application:
recordset.open( "insert data into table" ) ... recordset.open( "select @@identity" )-You will need to re-write your application for compatability with Oracle and other database vendors. It might be easier to convert the T-SQL SP's to PL-SQL SPs and avoid a re-compile of your application. You can use SPs to enhance security - does your application really need write access to the underlying tables? You can grant execute permissions to the SPs and not require write access to the underlying tables. They can also help prevent SQL Injection attacks - something you might want to be careful of with dynamic sql. My advice - use dynamic sql if you have to, otherwise stick with SPs. Dynamic SQL has its uses though...a web application I developed for work relys heavily on dynamic sql - in this particular case, dynamic sql was the only option available. -
That's the reason! Use a piece of code that runs a stored procedure and worry about the syntax in the database. The only reason I've found not to use stored procedures (in real life) is that the debugging is too hard. There is no reason to use ten layers and 100 stored automatically generated stored procedures when all you want is to write a single value in a simple table or something.
---------- Siderite
I suppose if maintenance weren't an issue. BTW, if you are having trouble debugging stored procedures, then they are too big.
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I actually know of cases where they cause lower performance
Can you post an example? I've been doing this for many years and I have never seen that happen except in cases where the stored proc was horribly written. Embedded/dynamic SQL can be poorly written as well.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps!If the server has a very large number of clients running queries which case the same stored proc to be used.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke