Stored Procedures are EVIL
By Tony Marston2006-09-07
Stored procedures are a maintenance problem
|
|
The reason for this is that stored procedures form an API by themselves. Changing an API is not that good, it will break a lot of code in some situations. Adding new functionality or new procedures is the "best" way to extend an existing API. A set of stored procedures is no different. This means that when a table changes, or behaviour of a stored procedure changes and it requires a new parameter, a new stored procedure has to be added. This might sound like a minor problem but it isn't, especially when your system is already large and has run for some time. Every system developed runs the risk of becoming a legacy system that has to be maintained for several years. This takes a lot of time, because the communication between the developer(s) who maintain/write the stored procedures and the developer(s) who write the DAL/BL code has to be intense: a new stored procedure will be saved fine, however it will not be called correctly until the DAL code is altered. When you have Dynamic SQL in your BL at your hands, it's not a problem. You change the code there, create a different filter, whatever you like and whatever fits the functionality to implement.
Microsoft also believes stored procedures are over: it's next generation business framework MBF is based on Objectspaces, which generates SQL on the fly.
Tutorial Pages:
» Stored Procedures are EVIL
» Stored procedures are not as brittle as dynamic SQL
» Stored procedures are more secure
» Stored procedures are more efficient
» The company has paid for them, so why not use them?
» Application code or database code - it's still code, isn't it?
» It mangles the 3 Tier structure
» Stored procedures are a maintenance problem
» Stored procedures take longer to test
» BL in stored procedures does not scale
» Stored procedures are not customisable
» Database triggers are hidden from the application
» Version Control
» Vendor lock-in
» References
|
