Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures?

by mpeppler (Vicar)
on Nov 25, 2006 at 16:30 UTC ( #586022=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures?
in thread DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures?

Stored procs, or SQL code located in a module off to the side have the exact same maintenance issues and the same potential coupling problems with the rest of the code.

Using stored procedures can make the code more modular, and more efficient, in particular for RDBMS systems where multi-version concurrency and long running transactions aren't handled well. In that case the stored procs allow for well-defined, short lived transactions that can be (mostly) independent of one another, avoiding most deadlock and similar problems.

It is my considered opinion (based on 20+ years of experience :-) that they are good for you.

Now triggers are a different story - they are a form of stored procedure, but their behavior and nesting can make the system's schema be rather difficult to understand (lots of nested rules buried in the triggers, sometimes).

Michael, Sybase (and somtimes Oracle) DBA.

  • Comment on Re^2: DBD::Oracle faster with bound sql than stored procedures?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://586022]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2020-12-01 11:45 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    How often do you use taint mode?





    Results (5 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?