Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 10/06/07 21:19

bobc (bcanavan@fmbnewhomes.com) writes:
> That has been the fundamental question all along. "How complex and/or
> flexible can a single stored procedure be, and still be efficient?"
>
> What I'm learning is that they can be very complex, but not as
> flexible as c, vb, etc.

Depends on what you mean with flexible, but with regards to column and
tables, yes, SQL puts you into a straight-jacket. But there is stuff
which is a lot of work to do in a traditional language which is a breeze
in SQL.

> I could build all the input parameters in vb and send them to the
> wrapper, and vary the number of calls the wrapper makes to the
> subproc. That way, I would only have to change the code in my page
> when the number or value of bins change. Wouldn't have to edit the
> stored procs.
>
> Does it look like a reasonable solution to you? Is it reasonably
> efficient?

Except that this far you have not really gained of the strength of a
stored procedure. You could just as well have built that SQL string
in client code. And then use a real array, with need for any list.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

[Back to original message]