Posted by HeadScratcher on 10/25/05 20:00

Better in terms of performance of SQL Server. B/C if there is one
common stored procedure, then the stored proc will have to create the
sql statement to include which database to perform the action to.
But, is the performance hit to do this really that high compared to
creating the maintence nightmare of updating the same stored procedure
in every database?

Thank you




Stu wrote:
> Better in terms of what?
>
> I mean, there are risks with using sp_executesql, and you've already
> made the decision to split your data (thus minimizing contamination
> and/or infiltration) so it seems a bit odd to allow users to jump into
> a common database (but there are ways to do this without
> sp_executeSQL)...
>
> What's your criteria for defining "better"?
>
> Stu

[Back to original message]