can we create user define function with in stored procedure then end of the store procedure we need to delete that custom user define function.
You can but it could get messy.
Look at sp_executesql. This will allow you to run arbitrary SQL, including DDL. Creating and using UDF's in this way does seem a bit dangerous -- you'll need to make sure that there aren't any name conflicts with competing threads, and there's no way to get any kind of query optimization.
I'd double check your design to make sure there isn't another solution to this!
Dynamic SQL is the only way.
ALTER PROC ...
AS
...
EXEC ('CREATE FUNCTION tempFunc...')
...
EXEC ('DROP FUNCTION tempFunc')
...
GO
However:
if you have 2 concurrent executions it will fail because tempFunc already exists
if each udf definition is different, then you need random names
if you randomise the name, the rest of the code will have to be dynamic SQL too
a stored proc implies reuse so just persist it
your code will need ddl_admin or db_owner rights to create the udf
...
So... why do you want to do this?
Related
I'm writing a stored procedure which checks for the existence of various tables in various databases, as well as the permissions that the user executing the stored procedure has on those tables. The stored procedure itself resides within a user database (i.e. it's not in the Master db).
To perform my checks, my stored procedure contains lots of SELECT statements. Each of those obviously returns a record set. What I would like is to somehow suppress these record sets so that they are not returned by the stored procedure, and instead return my own, single record set which is just a collection of messages relating to each check the stored procedure performs.
I think the obvious answer is to use a table-valued function instead, but I've not been able to recreate my tests successfully in a Function as they appear in the stored procedure. For starters, I'm having to use temporary tables (not possible in a function) and dynamic SQL (not very compatible with table parameters).
I think I've basically got two choices:
Rewrite my stored procedure as a function and figure out how to do the checks a different way.
Continue using my stored procedure and use an OUTPUT parameter to return my result messages, probably as a delimited string, and in the associated ASP.NET application just ignore all the record sets the stored procedure returns .
Neither of these solutions is very satisfactory. Before I spend any more time pursuing either one, is there a way to discard the record sets produced by the SELECT statements in a stored procedure and explicitly define what record I want it to return?
Hmm, I only can speculate here...
Are you using something like
SELECT ...;
IF ##rowcount > 0
BEGIN
...
END;
?
Then you can rewrite it using something like
IF EXISTS (SELECT ...)
BEGIN
...
END;
or
DECLARE #variable integer;
SELECT #variable = count(*) ...;
IF #variable > 0
BEGIN
...
END;
In general point the results of your queries to a target (variable, table, expression, ...), then they don't get outputted.
And then just execute the query for your desired result in the end.
In my opinion, here is almost no reason to have stored procedures produce record sets. That is what stored functions are for. On occasion, it is needed, because of the use of dynamic SQL or other stored procedures, but not as a general practice. Much, much too often, I see stored procedures being used where stored functions or views are more appropriate.
What should you do? Even SELECT statement in the stored procedure should be one of the following:
Setting (local) variables.
Saving the results in a temporary table or table variable.
The logic for the stored procedure should be working on the local variables. The results should be returned using OUTPUT parameters.
If you need to return rows in a tabular format, you can do that using tables explicitly (such as a global temporary table or real table). Or, you can have one SELECT at the end that does return a single result set. However, if you need this and can phrase the stored procedure as a function, that is better in my opinion.
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.
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).
I have several stored procedures that all use the same set of parameters. Is there a way to define and save the parameter list as a reusable block of code? Something like this:
CREATE PROCEDURE test
Using StoredParameterList
AS
BEGIN
SQL Statement
END
Is this possible? It would make code maintenance easier if a parameter needed to be changed.
Well, sort of. I've never used them, but Sql Server supports something called User Defined Types. I suspect you can create a user-defined type that represents your parameter list and then just have one parameter on each procedure with UDT.
When it comes to creating stored procedures, views, functions, etc., is it better to do a DROP...CREATE or an ALTER on the object?
I've seen numerous "standards" documents stating to do a DROP...CREATE, but I've seen numerous comments and arguments advocating for the ALTER method.
The ALTER method preserves security, while I've heard that the DROP...CREATE method forces a recompile on the entire SP the first time it's executed instead of just a a statement level recompile.
Can someone please tell me if there are other advantages / disadvantages to using one over the other?
ALTER will also force a recompile of the entire procedure. Statement level recompile applies to statements inside procedures, eg. a single SELECT, that are recompiled because the underlying tables changes, w/o any change to the procedure. It wouldn't even be possible to selectively recompile just certain statements on ALTER procedure, in order to understand what changed in the SQL text after an ALTER procedure the server would have to ... compile it.
For all objects ALTER is always better because it preserves all security, all extended properties, all dependencies and all constraints.
This is how we do it:
if object_id('YourSP') is null
exec ('create procedure dbo.YourSP as select 1')
go
alter procedure dbo.YourSP
as
...
The code creates a "stub" stored procedure if it doesn't exist yet, otherwise it does an alter. In this way any existing permissions on the procedure are preserved, even if you execute the script repeatedly.
Starting with SQL Server 2016 SP1, you now have the option to use CREATE OR ALTER syntax for stored procedures, functions, triggers, and views. See CREATE OR ALTER – another great language enhancement in SQL Server 2016 SP1 on the SQL Server Database Engine Blog. For example:
CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.MyProc
AS
BEGIN
SELECT * FROM dbo.MyTable
END;
Altering is generally better. If you drop and create, you can lose the permissions associated with that object.
If you have a function/stored proc that is called very frequently from a website for example, it can cause problems.
The stored proc will be dropped for a few milliseconds/seconds, and during that time, all queries will fail.
If you do an alter, you don't have this problem.
The templates for newly created stored proc are usually this form:
IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sysobjects WHERE type = 'P' AND name = '<name>')
BEGIN
DROP PROCEDURE <name>
END
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE <name>
......
However, the opposite is better, imo:
If the storedproc/function/etc doesn't exist, create it with a dummy select statement. Then, the alter will always work - it will never be dropped.
We have a stored proc for that, so our stored procs/functions usually like this:
EXEC Utils.pAssureExistance 'Schema.pStoredProc'
GO
ALTER PROCECURE Schema.pStoredProc
...
and we use the same stored proc for functions:
EXEC Utils.pAssureExistance 'Schema.fFunction'
GO
ALTER FUNCTION Schema.fFunction
...
In Utils.pAssureExistance we do a IF and look at the first character after the ".": If it's a "f", we create a dummy fonction, if it's "p", we create a dummy stored proc.
Be careful though, if you create a dummy scalar function, and your ALTER is on a table-valued function, the ALTER FUNCTION will fail, saying it's not compatible.
Again, Utils.pAssureExistance can be handy, with an additional optional parameter
EXEC Utils.pAssureExistance 'Schema.fFunction', 'TableValuedFunction'
will create a dummy table-valued function,
Additionaly, I might be wrong, but I think if you do a drop procedure and a query is currently using the stored proc, it will fail.
However, an alter procedure will wait for all queries to stop using the stored proc, and then alter it. If the queries are "locking" the stored proc for too long (say a couple seconds), the ALTER will stop waiting for the lock, and alter the stored proc anyway: the queries using the stored proc will probably fail at that point.
DROP generally loses permissions AND any extended properties.
On some UDFs, ALTER will also lose extended properties (definitely on SQL Server 2005 multi-statement table-valued functions).
I typically do not DROP and CREATE unless I'm also recreating those things (or know I want to lose them).
I don't know if it's possible to make such blanket comment and say "ALTER is better". I think it all depends on the situation. If you require this sort of granular permissioning down to the procedure level, you probably should handle this in a separate procedure. There are benefits to having to drop and recreate. It cleans out existing security and resets it what's predictable.
I've always preferred using drop/recreate. I've also found it easier to store them in source control. Instead of doing .... if exists do alter and if not exists do create.
With that said... if you know what you're doing... I don't think it matters too much.
If you perform a DROP, and then use a CREATE, you have almost the
same effect as using an ALTER VIEW statement. The problem is that you need to entirely re-establish your permissions on who can and can’t use the view. ALTER retains any dependency information and set permissions.
You've asked a question specifically relating to DB objects that do not contain any data, and theoretically should not be changed that often.
Its likely you may need to edit these objects but not every 5 minutes. Because of this I think you've already hit the hammer on the head - permissions.
Short answer, not really an issue, so long as permissions are not an issue
We used to use alter while we were working in development either creating new functionality or modifying the functionality. When we were done with our development and testing we would then do a drop and create. This modifys the date/time stamp on the procs so you can sort them by date/time.
It also allowed us to see what was bundeled by date for each deliverable we sent out.
Add with a drop if exists is better because if you have multiple environments when you move the script to QA or test or prod you don't know if the script already exists in that environment. By adding an drop (if it already exists) and and then add you will be covered regardless if it exists or not. You then have to reapply permissions but its better then hearing your install script error-ed out.
From a usability point of view a drop and create is better than a alter. Alter will fail in a database that doesn't contain that object, but having an IF EXISTS DROP and then a CREATE will work in a database with the object already in existence or in a database where the object doesn't exist. In Oracle and PostgreSQL you normally create functions and procedures with the statement CREATE OR REPLACE that does the same as a SQL SERVER IF EXISTS DROP and then a CREATE. It would be nice if SQL Server picked up this small but very handy syntax.
This is how I would do it. Put all this in one script for a given object.
IF EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM information_schema.routines
WHERE routine_schema = 'dbo'
AND routine_name = '<PROCNAME'
AND routine_type = 'PROCEDURE' )
BEGIN
DROP PROCEDURE <PROCNAME>
END
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE <PROCNAME>
AS
BEGIN
END
GO
GRANT EXECUTE ON <PROCNAME> TO <ROLE>
GO