Which approach is better to use if I need a member (sp or func) returning 2 parameters:
CREATE PROCEDURE Test
#in INT,
#outID INT OUT,
#amount DECIMAL OUT
AS
BEGIN
...
END
or
CREATE FUNCTION Test
(
#in INT
)
RETURNS #ret TABLE (outID INT, amount DECIMAL)
AS
BEGIN
...
END
What are pros and cons of each approach considering that the result will passed to another stored procedure:
EXEC Foobar #outID, #outAmount
A table valued function can only be used within a scope of a single SELECT statement. It cannot perform DML, catch exceptions etc.
On the other hand, it can return a set which can immediately be joined with another recordset in the same query.
If you use DML or don't need to use the output parameters in the set-based statements, use a stored proc; otherwise create a TVF.
A stored procedure that calls a function :-) I think either will suite you... if your app uses stored procedures for querying the database, then it may be best to be consistent... if you use an ORM, it may not recognize the function... I don't think you can go wrong with either.
In one of my apps, we preferred using the function approach, to throw in another perspective.
HTH.
With the stored procedure using output parameters you will only be able to return the two values: #outID and #amount.
With the table-valued function, you will be able to return a whole set of (outID, amount) tuples. In addition, a table-valued function can be used wherever table or view expressions are allowed in queries, such as:
SELECT dbo.Test(1) AS TestValues
I would argue The output parameter approach is most desirable. This makes it more self documenting that not more than one tuple is expected and I would assume is likely to be more efficient.
I would only use a table-valued function if I needed to obtain a table of values.
If there is only one "row" in your output then it would be preferable to use output parameters in a Stored Procedure.
One exception to this is if your SP/UDF can be written as a single SELECT statement - i.e. an Inline Function - because SQL Server can make better optimizations if you ever need to do something like join it to the output of another query. You may not be doing that now, but writing an inline UDF means you won't be caught off-guard with slow-as-molasses queries and timeout reports if somebody starts using it that way in the future.
If none of that applies to you then I would use a Stored Procedure for the reasons outlined; you don't want to create the illusion of set-based semantics when you aren't actually supporting them.
Output parameters.
Multi-statement table value functions are difficult to trace and tune. Stick with the stored procedure which is easier to troubleshoot.
Also, you are limited to what you can do in a udf. Say you need to add logging, or call an extended stored proc later... you can't use a udf for this.
I think your better bet would be the SP because with the TBF (table value function) you'd have to iterate through the table to get your value.
Bear in mind that if you iterate through the table in SQL, then you'll need to use a CURSOR (which aren't too bad, but can be a little tricky to use).
Related
If we have only Out parameter in our PLSQL procedure.Then can we use function instead of procedure as function is also able to return the value.
And if we still using procedure then we use this instead of function.
I hope I am able to convey the right question which I want to ask?
Some important difference between both are as following:
Function:
It can be called from the SQL statement (SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE)
Can return only one value
DML operations are not allowed in it
Best for selecting the value for some common complex logic.
Procedure:
It cannot be called from the SQL statement. You must need the PL/SQL block to call it.
Can return multiple values (OUT parameters)
All DML operations are allowed within procedures.
Best for doing some complex logic and updating the table data accordingly.
It depends on what the procedure does.
For example, if it (along with returning some value) uses DML operations (e.g. inserts rows into some table), then function can't do that - you'll have to use a procedure.
Procedure's drawback is that you can't use it in a SELECT statement, such as
select proc_name(out_param) from dual;
You'll have to use a function in such cases.
Also, OUT parameter has to be stored somewhere, and that's usually a locally declared variable, but that means that you need another PL/SQL block to call the procedure and see its result.
If everything your current procedure does is to find & return some value, then yes - a function might be a better choice.
I have a procedure that looks like this:
create or replace procedure proc1 (prc out sys_refcursor, <filter variables>)
as
begin
open prc for (select * from blah blah blah.. <logic using filter variables,
calculations,etc>
end proc1
I was wondering if it is possible to use the output from this procedure in another procedure to further filter the data I am looking at and do more calculations. Is there a way to pass the sys_refcursor to another procedure and select into that (probably a bad idea)? Or would a temporary table help here?
I understand that I could make this into one procedure but I need the data from both separately as they are both relevant to what I am doing.
Once you wrapped your result set in a cursor, your sql options are limited. You can of course pass the cursor to another function and fetch from it there. But you'll have to do all the dirty filtering work yourself.
Still passing cursors around is sometimes a valid design pattern. Typicall you will fetch from the cursor and generate other selects from that. However, in your case you want to further filter your data, and in this case a cursor is not a good choice in general, because you loose the power of SQL.
If you really want to do such a thing you can use pipelined functions. In contrast to cursors these allow you to create a (virtual) table where you can use plain old select again. And of course you can create such a pipelined function when given a cursor by fetching from it and invoking pipe row repeatedly.
But all of this is tedious and requires quite some boilerplate code.
In general there is not much penaltly in just writing multiple selects with different where clauses. If you want to explicitly encode that these selects are restriciting the result set more and more, use select from select, maybe placing the inner selects into a view, thus creating a hierarchy of views.
I need to insert values from a table into a sproc. For example:
exec mysproc #param1='col1', #param2='col2'
This can be done using a cursor but is there some way to do it via a set operation?
It is not possible to invoke an sproc as part of a "set operation". Probably, the reason for that is that the sproc might have arbitrary side-effects like modifying data, sending additional result sets (!) or shutting down the server.
A cursor is the canonical approach to this. (Alas.)
You could modify the sproc to take a TVP, of course. Not sure if that is workable for you.
I imagine that the method you choose would be based on the amount of time you have available and it's difficult to say which of these methods is most time consuming without being more intimate with the logic.
There are a few approaches to this problem.
As Robert Harvey has alluded to, you should maybe look at maybe
modifying the proc to accept a table valued parameter (if you are
using SQL Server 2008 upwards). If not, you could create a scalar
XML parameter that is "decoded" in to a table inside the proc.
Populate a #table with your "parameter data" and a ROW_NUMBER() and
use a WHILE loop to call the proc for each row in your #table.
Create a CURSOR (I hate giving CURSOR advice) of type FAST_FORWARD
and iteratively call the procedure.
Dynamic SQL; build up a SQL command string using EXEC or preferably
SP_EXECUTESQL.
My opinion is that first prize would be to re-engineer the proc to
accept parameter filters. Going on the assumption that the dataset
you wish to create parameters from is the result of a filtered
query:
SELECT Moo, Meow
FROM Woof
WHERE Fu = #ParmX
AND Bar = #ParmY
Your proc should be called with #ParmX, #ParmY and the logic inside would then proceed in a set based manner.
I didn't undetstood the difference between Stored Functions and Views.
Using Views in SELECT will execute the query and return the result, but Stored Functions do the same thing, don't they? So what is the difference? When I use Views and when Stored Functions?
View:
A view is a virtual table. It does not physically exist. Rather, it is created by a query joining one or more tables. View returns a table.
Stored procedure: A stored procedure is a group of Transact-SQL statements compiled into a single execution plan.
stored procedures returns Output parameters,return codes (which are always an integer value),
a result set for each SELECT statement contained in the stored procedure or any other stored procedures called by the stored procedure,a global cursor that can be referenced outside the stored procedure.
key benefits of stored procedure are Precompiled execution, reduced client/server traffic,efficient reuse of code, programming abstraction and enhanced security controls.
Update:
A stored function is a named PL/SQL Block which is similar to a procedure. The major difference between a procedure and a function is, a function must always return a value, but a procedure may or may not return a value.
1) Return Type: The header section defines the return type of the function. The return datatype can be any of the oracle datatype like varchar, number etc.
2) The execution and exception section both should return a value which is of the datatype defined in the header section
You can have a stored function return the same data a view would in most databases.
The distinction for me is that a function is executed and a view is selected from.
A view will behave as a table.
A view returns a specific pre-defined statement as exactly one result set.
A function returns a single values or a single result set. This however can differ from different types of database.
Several db implementations also have stored procedures where the result can be a single returned value, a result set or several result sets.
Getting simple (PLEASE start reading a book about SQL): A view looks like a table, so you can filter on the results and the filter will efficiently be part of the views execution, or do joins. A SP does not allow this, but a lot more logic. The rest... is in the documentation.
These can never be compares, these have totally different
approach.
A view is a output of a query ,and makes a virtual image of the table,and the input parameters are not accepted.
Main difference is that a Stored Procedure can alter your data, where
as a view only returns it and I believe from a performance point of
view, a stored procedure is better as it caches the execution plan and
will run faster as a result.
storedprocedure/function is a group of sql statements that are pre-executed and it accepts the parameters.it reduces network traffic, gives faster performance, etc.
SQL Functions in programming languages are subroutines used to encapsulate frequently performed logic. these somewhat slow down the performance.
Check these SQL View, SQL Stored Procedures and SQL User-Defined Functions
My Opinion is that SQL Stored Procedure(Stored Functions) are much better to use because it provides custom manipulations on result set also.
From my experiences I'm sharing to you my knowledge:
Don't use views
Better to use a stored procedure(it is compiled sql statement), you can use parametrized procedure as required.
Stored Function is collection of complied sql statement which is faster.
Note: Views is a SELECT statement( with/without JOIN) for a table which select data from table and if we again run a SELECT statement from VIEWS which provide slower result because the internal operation is as ( SELECT * FROM ( SELECT * FROM TargetTable ) )
So, its better to use Stored Function
Update:
Functions are computed values and cannot perform permanent environmental changed to SQL Server (i.e. no INSERT or UPDATE statements allowed).
A Function can be used inline in SQL Statements if it returns a scalar value or can be joined upon if it returns a result set.
Also please see here for performance comparison: SQL-Server Performance: What is faster, a stored procedure or a view?
I have some doubt regarding user defined functions. I would like to know why / when to use functions.
What are the advantages of functions over stored procedure?
Researching via google I have seen articles suggesting:
stored procedure are more advantageous than functions.
function have limited error handling
functions cannot use temporary tables
functions cannot call stored procedures.
The only advantage of function is we can use function as inline queries.
I can get the same result with stored procedure by using temporary tables, but i need to know which scenario to use functions compared to stored procedure.
I need to know why we need UDf , when most of the functionalities provided by UDF can be done by Stored procedure.
Can any one guide me over this.
The main difference (advantage) is that you can call functions inline unlike stored procedures
e.g.
SELECT dbo.fxnFormatName(FirstName, LastName) AS FormattedName
FROM MyTable
SELECT *
FROM dbo.fxnTableReturningFunction() x
User defined functions can return TABLE type data and then the function can then be called within a query as demonstrated above. With a sproc, you'd have to execute it and store the results into a temporary table in order to then manipulate/query the resultset further.
On the flip side, yes you are limited as to what you can do in a function. e.g. you can't use dynamic sql, and pre-SQL 2005 you can't use non-deterministic functions like GETDATE() within a function.
An example of when you may want to use functions, is to wrap up common "formatting" functionality as shown in the first example above - rather than repeat the logic to format a first and last name into one in every query, you wrap it in a function and call that everywhere. Typically I'd recommend leaving the formatting up to the UI but it's a simple example of where/why you might use.
Also, it can often be nicer to not have to create temp tables to hold results from a sproc in order to query it further. If the sproc changes and returns more columns, you'd also need to change everywhere that loads the results into a temp table to synch the schema of the table table it uses to hold the results with the new schema returned. You don't have this problem with the function approach as there is no temp table to be maintained.
There are three types of functions: Scalar, Inline Table and Table Valued. Generally speaking, Scalar & Table Values functions can lead to performance problems, seeing as the Query Optimiser doesn't do very well at optimisation of the use of those types of functions. The performance of Inline Table function is just fine, however.
There is a Connect request to create a new type of scalar function here: The Scalar Expression function would speed performance...
I hope that people do vote for that one, because it would improve performance greatly by allowing the query optimiser to inline functional expressions and take advantage of statistics etc just as it would for a normal query.
The main "disadvantage" of user-defined functions is that they are called for each row. So, if you have such a function in the SELECT list and you're operating on larger sets, there are good chances that your performance will suffer.
Advantage of Mysql Stored Procedure
Multiple applications are running in multiple environment and need to use the same database. By using stored procedure you can make your business logic independent of programming language.
When security is main concern use of stored procedure is vital. By doing your operation through the database you can log your all performed action. Banking site is the best example.
If you are using stored procedure then you do not have table access directly which is one more way to secure the data and transaction.
Stored procedure increases performance of your application sometime
If your application is big or your database server on remote system then by using stored procedure you can decrease the traffic between your database server and application server.
Since stored procedure is written in your database server and application call it sepratly then the degree of re-usability.