Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Stored Procedures

Business Logic

Ed Elliott hits a classic architectural argument—whether business logic should be in stored procedures;

Stackoverflow is a specific use case and they decided to use .Net so they have a specific set of problems to deal with in terms of performance. They deploy (as I understand it) 10 times a day so if they need to change a query then they can quickly and easily – how quickly can you modify code and get it to production to fix a problem causing downtime on your mission critical app written in powerbuilder 20 years ago? (I jest but you get the point)

I like Ed’s back-and-forth arguing, as there are legitimate cases for both sides and the best answer almost always is somewhere in between for line of business apps.   I have three points that I tend to mention whenever this discussion comes up.

First, a lot of “business logic” is actually data logic.  Check constraints, foreign key constraints, unique key constraints, and even primary key constraints (for non-surrogate primary keys) are business rules, but they’re business rules around how the data is shaped and it’s a lot better to use your database system to maintain those rules.

Second, validation rules should be everywhere.  The fancy Javascript library should do validation, the server-side business logic should do validation, and the database should do validation.  You don’t know what’s going to skip one or more of these layers, and your database is the final gatekeeper preventing bad data from sneaking into your system.

Third, at the margin, go where your maintenance developers are most comfortable.  If they’re really good with C# but not good with SQL, the marginal business logic (the stuff you could really go either way on) should stay in the app tier; if your maintainers have really strong SQL skills but are lagging on the .NET side, I’d stick the marginal logic in stored procedures.

Comments closed

Finding Nested Stored Procedures

Michael J. Swart has a script to find nested stored procedures:

Adventureworks seems just fine to me. Only four instances of procedures calling procedures. I looked at the database I work with most. Hundreds of procedures (representing 15% of the procedures) call other procedures. On the other end of the spectrum is Stackoverflow. I understand that they don’t use stored procedures at all.

Check out the comments for more notes.

Comments closed

Permissions To Create Stored Procedures

Kenneth Fisher shows the permissions necessary to create a stored procedure:

The user still won’t be able to create procedures or views. And if you think about it in the right way it makes sense. While the CREATE permissions give us the ability to create objects what they don’t give us is a place to put them. Schemas are containers for most of the objects in databases. So in order change the schema (by putting an object in it) we need to grant ALTER on it. So for the CREATE to work we need to:

Getting the right granularity for permissions is a vital part of securing a SQL Server instance.

Comments closed

External Temp Tables And Plan Cache Bloat

Sebastian Meine warns us about using external temporary tables in stored procedures:

When a stored procedure is compiled that is accessing an external temp table, SQL Server has no guarantee that the next time this stored procedure is called it is called from the same connection. However, if it is called from a different connection, the accessed temp table might contain significantly more (or less) data making a different execution plan preferable.

A simple way to deal with this situation is to force a recompilation every time a procedure that works with external temporary tables is executed. SQL Server is not going that route. Instead, SQL Server caches the procedure once for each connection. That can safe a significant amount of CPU resources when the procedure in question is called within a loop.

Try to avoid using external temp tables.  There are some cases in which it’s a very useful construct, but

Comments closed

Parameterizing Procedures

Monica Rathbun shows how to combine several report queries:

I try to parameterize as many stored procedures as possible. This not only minimizes the amount of procedures I need to maintain, it in my opinion is a much cleaner way to code. It disturbs me when I see multiple stored procedures that pull the exact same data, but may have slight differences between them. Whether it be a sort, a where clause, or even just an extra field or two that makes it different, some developers think you need a different procedure for each one . Why not consolidate and parameterize?

The next step might be using dynamic SQL to build a query if there’s as much overlap as we see in Monica’s example.

Comments closed