We're in the process of setting up a new framework and way of doing business for our new internal apps. Our current design dictates that all security logic should be handled by our database, and all information (and I mean all) will be going in and out of the database via stored procedures.
The theory is, the data access layer requests info from a stored procedure and passes over authentication to the database. The database determines the user's role/permissions and decides whether or not to perform the task (whether that be retrieving data or making an update).
I guess this means fewer database transactions. One call to the database. If the security was in our data access layer, this would require 1 database call to determine if the user had proper permissions, and then 1 separate database call to perform the action.
I, for one, find the SQL Management studio completely lacking as an IDE. My main concern is we will end up having to maintain some nasty amount of business logic in our stored procedures for some very minimal performance gains.
Right now, we're using LINQ for our ORM. It seems light and fast, but best of all, its really easy to rapidly develop in.
Is the maintenance cost worth the performance gain? Are we fooling ourselves into thinking there will even be a noticeable performance gain? Or are we just making a nightmare for ourselves?
Our environment:
Internal, non-mission critical business apps
C#/ASP.NET 3.5
Windows 2003
MS SQL Server 2005
35 Medium sized web apps with approx 500 users
Don't do that. We recently had a VERY BAD experience when the "database guru" decided to go to another company. The maintenance of all the logic in the procedures are just horrible!!
Yes, you're going to have some performance improvement, but that's not worth it. In fact, performance is not even a big concern in internal application. Invest more money in good servers. It'll pay off.
Unfortunately there is no "one true answer". The choice you must make depends on multiple factors, like:
The familiarity of the team with the given solutions (ie if a majority of them is comfortable writing SQL, it can be in the database, however if a majority of them is more comfortable with C#, it should be in the code)
The "political power" of each party
etc
There is no decisive advantage in any direction (as you said performance gains are minimal), the one thing to keep in mind is the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle: don't reimplement the functionality twice (in the code and in the DB), because keeping them in synch will be a nightmare. Pick one solution and stick to it.
You could do it but its a huge pain to develop against and maintain. Take it from someone who is on a project where almost all business logic is coded in stored procedures.
For security, ASP.NET has user and role management baked into it so you might be saving trips to the database but so what? In exchange it becomes far more annoying to handle and debug system and validation errors because they have to bubble up from the database.
Unit testing is far more difficult since the frameworks available for unit testing sprocs are far less developed.
Proper oop and domain driven design is all but out the window.
And the performance gain is going to be tiny if any. We talked about this here.
I would recommend that if you want to save your sanity as a developer you fight tooth and nail to keep the database as the persistence layer only
IMHO:
Application service tier -> application logic and validation
Application data tier -> data logic and security
Database -> data consistency
You will be bitten by the sproc approach sooner or later, I have learned this the hard way.
Procs are great for one shot operations that need a lot of performance, but the CRUD part is the data tiers job
Stored procedures are usually a win for security. Simplifying the relationship between your application and the database reduces the number of places where you can have errors; errors in code that interfaces business logic to the database tend to be security problems. So, your DBA isn't wrong about locking things down to stored procedures.
Another benefit to locking the application down to stored procedures is that the app stack's database connection can have its privileges locked down to specific stored procedure calls and nothing else.
A benefit to having a DBA involved in security logic for your application is that the different app features and roles can be partitioned in the database down to views, so that even if dynamic SQL and generic select statements are needed, the damage from an SQL vulnerability can be constrained.
The flip side of this is, of course, lost flexibility. An ORM is obviously going to be faster to develop to than a constant negotiation with a DBA over stored procedure parameters. And, as the pressure on those stored procedures grows, it's more and more likely that the procedures themselves will resort to dynamic SQL, which will be just as vulnerable as app composed SQL to attack.
There's a happy middle ground here, and you should try to find it. I've worked on projects recently that were saved from pretty terrible SQL injection problems because a DBA had carefully configured the database, its connections, and its stored procedures for "least privilege", so that any one database user had access only to what they needed to know.
Obviously, as you write SQL code in your app logic, be sure that you're consistently using parameterized prepared statements, that you're sanitizing your input, that you're mindful of internationalized input (there are many, many ways to say single-quote over HTTP), and that you're mindful of how your database behaves when inputs are too large for column widths.
It all depends on your case it is probably better not to go the SP route and do everything the DDD way (make a Domain model in code and use that).
However, if you have a database that is not only used by your application but by many then you should probably consider web services. In any way, the database should only be accessible via one layer that enforces the business rules else you are going to end up with "dirty" data and sanitizing your data afterward is a much bigger pain than writing a few business rules beforehand. A good database should have check-constraints and indexes set, so it will have some business rules whether you like it or not.
And if you have to deal with millions and billions of records you will be happy to have a good DB-guy that solves the problem for you.
My opinion is that the application itself should handle authentication and authorisation. On the database side you should only handle encryption of data as needed.
I have built stored procedure based applications in the past. In your case there maybe a way to keep authentication at the database layer and have your business logic in C#. Use views to limit data (you only see the rows you have authority to). These views can be used in LINQ with the same ease as tables. You set your updates to happen with stored procedures.
This allows linq, business logic in C#, and a common authentication layer in the database that controls access to the data.
Related
If there are any DBAs out there, I'm making a fairly large piece of software and one of the biggest issues presently is where to put the business logic. While Stored Procedures would be easier to fix on the fly, the processing requirements would probably slow the DB down tremendously. I also don't want to have all of the business logic handled by the application because I want it to be a "self-sustaining entity" that doesn't require the user-front end to operate.
My idea, is to create a service to run on a central server somewhere, and have the clients connect through that. The service would maintain all the business logic and serve as a front-end for all the database operations.
Ideas? Yes? No?
I'm willing to accept that I'm also missing some key concepts and need to read some literature.
i would suggest that you keep a keen eye on the difference between what you think of as business logic, and what are the referential integrity constraints.
Make sure all constraints that keep the data meaningfully related are in place at the database layer. i.e. if you need to cascade some deletes, or inserts - and when you need to validate some basic data values in order to have everything make sense... these should all be in the database.
Then decide if the Client, or the middle layer server, or the database is appropriate for any additional business logic.
What do you mean by "business logic"?
I've seen cases where aggregations and other set-based operations have been done in client code, as well as horrible RBAR operations in SQL that should be somewhere else.
SQL is one tool that has it's place: if you're working through large datasets, JOINs, aggregations etc then SQL is the place to do it. Anything else is slavish obedience to an SOA ideal.
My approach is to consider what the stored proc or SQL is doing: is it part of the middle tier to avoid set based operations in procedural code, or is it lower as pure data integrity/persistence?
If your business logic is 100% set based then you don't need a middle tier (edit: client code based) arguably, unless it's very thin.
Over the years, I've seen client applications come and go, but the database is still there.
So nowadays I use stored procedures for most of the business logic. Three big advantages:
Bug fix deployment takes an instant, with no downtime
Multi-user by default
Far less plumbing code (no data access layer)
Having all business logic on the server side is fine.
Not having it on the server side is fine, too.
In fact, it's up to you.
If a stored procedure tends to look not sql-ish, you can make a CLR stored procedure.
Here's a similar question.
I'd highly recommend a traditional n-layer approach, where you have at least UI layer, business layer (like a C# assembly or Java equivolent), and data access. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitier_architecture.
I worked for a company where all the business logic was in the procs, and maintence costs are much higher than they had to be, it limited us to a specific version of sql server, it wasn't scalable, etc. In short, unless your application is a simple throw away kind of thing, I'd not put any business logic in the database.
I have read many strong views (both for and against) SPs or DS.
I am writing a query engine in C++ (mySQL backend for now, though I may decide to go with a C++ ORM). I cant decide whether to write a SP, or to dynamically creat the SQL and send the query to the db engine.#
Any tips on how to decide?
Here's the simple answer:
If your programmers do both database and coding work, keep the SQL with the app. It's easier to maintain that way. Otherwise, let the DB guys handle it in SPs.
You have more control over the mechanisms outside the database. The biggest win for taking care of this outside the database is simply maintenance (in my mind). It'd be slightly hard to version control the SP vs the code you generate outside the database. One more thing to keep track of.
While we're on the topic, it's similar to handling data/schema migrations. It's annoyingly complex to version/handle schema migrations, if you don't already have a mechanism for this, you will have yet another thing you'll need to manage. It comes down to simply being easier to manage/version these things outside the database.
Consider the scenario where you have a bug in your SP. Now it needs to be changed, but then you hop over to another developers database/sandbox. What version is the sandbox and the SP? Now you have to track multiple versions.
One of the main differentiators is whether you are writing the "one true front end" or whether the database is the central piece of your application.
If you are going to have multiple front ends stored procedures make a lot of sense because you reduce your maintenance overhead. If you are writing only one interface, stored procedures are a pain, because you lose a lot of flexibility in changing your data set as your front end needs change, plus you now have to do code maintenance, version control, etc. in two places. Databases are a real pain to keep in sync with code repositories.
Finally, if you are coding for multiple databases (Oracle and SQL compatible code, for example), I'd avoid stored procedures completely.
You may in certain rare circumstances, after profiling, determine that some limited stored procedures are useful to you. This situation comes up way less than people think it does.
The main scenarios when you MUST have the SP is:
1) When you have very complex set of queries with heavy compile overhead and data drift low enough that recompiling is not needed on a regular basis.
2) When the "Only True" logic for accessing the specific data set is VERY complicated, needs to be accessed from several different codebases on different platforms (so writing multiple APIs in code is much more expensive).
Any other scenario, it's debatable, and can be decided one way or another.
I must also say that the other posters' arguments about versioning are not really such a big deal in my experience - having your SPs in version control is as easy as creating a "sql/db_name" directory structure and having easy basic "database release" script which releases the SP code from the version control location to the database. Every company I worked for had some kind of setup like this, central one run by DBAs or departmental one run by developers.
The one thing you want to avoid is to have your business logic spread across multiple tiers of your application. Database DDL and DML are difficult enough to keep in sync with an application code base as it is.
My recommendation is to create a good relational schema, but all your constraints and triggers so that the data retains integrity even if somebody goes to the database and tries to do something through some command line SQL.
Put all your business logic in an application or service that calls (static/dynamic) SQL then wraps the business functionality you are are trying to expose.
Stored-procedures have two purposes that I can think of.
An aid to simplifying data access.
The Stored Procedure does not have
any business logic in it, it just
knows about the structure of the
data and exposes an interface to
isolate accessing three tables and a
view just to get a single piece of
information.
Mapping the Domain Model to the Data
Model, Stored Procedures can assist
in making the Data Model look like a
given Domain Model.
After the program has been completed and has been profiled there are often performance issues with the pre 1.0 release. Stored procedures do offer batching of SQL without traffic needing to go back and forth between the DBMS and the Application. That being said in rare and extreme cases due to performance a few business rules might need to be migrated to the Stored-Procedure side. Make sure to document any exceptions to the architectural philosophy in multiple prominent places.
Stored Procedures are ideal for:
Creating reusable abstractions over complex queries;
Enforcing specific types of insertions/updates to tables (if you also deny permissions to the table);
Performing privileged operations that the logged-in user wouldn't normally be allowed to do;
Guaranteeing a consistent execution plan;
Extending the capabilities of an ORM (batch updates, hierarchy queries, etc.)
Dynamic SQL is ideal for:
Variable search arguments or output columns:
Optional search conditions
Pivot tables
IN clauses with user-specified values
ORM implementations (most can use SPs, but can't be built entirely on them);
DDL and administrative scripts.
They solve different problems, really. Use whichever one is more appropriate to the task at hand, and don't restrict yourself to just one or the other. After you work on database code for a while you'll start to get a more intuitive feel for these things; you'll find yourself banging together some rat's nest of strings for a query and think, "this should really go in a stored procedure."
Final note: Because this question implies a certain level of inexperience with SQL, I feel obliged to say, don't forget that you still need to parameterize your queries when you write dynamic SQL. Parameters aren't just for stored procedures.
DS is more flexible. SP approach makes your system more manageable.
I have been working with NHibernate, LINQ to SQL, and Entity Framework for quite some time. And while I see the benefits to using an ORM to keep the development effort moving quickly, the code simple, and the object relational impedance mismatch to a minimum, I still find it very difficult to convince a die hard SQL dba of an ORM's strengths. From my point of view an ORM can be used for at least 90-95% of all of your data access leaving those really hairy things to be done in procedures or functions where appropriate. I am by no means the guy that says we must do everything in the ORM!
Question: What are some of the better arguments for convincing an old school dba that the use of an ORM is not the absolute worst idea ever conceived by a programmer!
If you want to convince him, first you need to understand what his problem is with use of an ORM. Giving you a list of generic benefits is unlikely to help if it does not address the issues he has.
However, my first guess as to his issue would be that it prevents him from doing any optimisation because you're accessing tables directly so he has no layer of abstraction behind which to work, so if a table needs altering or (de)normalizing then he can't do it without breaking your application.
If you're wondering why a DBA would feel like this, and how to respond to it, then it's roughly the same as him coming up to you and saying he wants you to make all the private fields in your classes public, and that you can't change any of them without asking him first. Imagine what it would take for him to convince you that's a good idea, and then use the same argument on him.
Explain to them that creating a stored procedure for every action taken by an application is unmaintainable on several levels.
If the schema changes it's difficult
to track down all the stored
procedures that are affected.
It's impossible ensure that multiple
stored procedures aren't created to
do the same thing, or if slightly
altering an existing stored
procedure is going to have serious
ramifications.
It's difficult to make sure that the
application and database are in
sync after a deploy.
Dynamic SQL has all these issues and more.
I guess, my first question to "Convincing a die hard DBA to use an ORM" would be: Is the DBA also a programmer that also works outside the DB so that he/she would "use an ORM"? If not then why would the DBA give up a major part of their job to someone else and thereby significantly reduce their overall usefulness to the company? They wouldn't.
In any case, the best way to convince any engineer of anything is with empirical data. Setup a prototype with a few parts of the real application ported to ORM for the purpose of your demonstration and actually prove your points.
On another point I think you don't get the object relational impedance dilemma if you're trying to use that as an argument to use an Object-Relation-Mapper. The DBA could quote from that link you posted where where it says "Mapping such private object representation to database tables makes such databases fragile according to OOP philosophy" and that the issue is further pronounced "particularly when objects or class definitions are mapped (ORM) in a straightforward way to database tables or relational schemata" So according to your own link, by promoting ORM you are promoting the problem.
By using sprocs the DBA is free to make changes to the underlying schema, so long as the sproc still returns the same columns with the same types. Thusly with this abstraction that sprocs add, the direct schema mapping issues become nought. This does not mean however that you need to give up your beloved EF since EF can now be used quite happily with sprocs.
Procedures used to be more efficient because of predictable caching mechanisms. However, many DBA's overkill the procedures, introducing lots of branching logic with IF commands, resulting in an scenarios where they become uncacheable.
Next, procedures are only useful if you plan to span data logic across multiple platforms; a website and separate client application, for example. If you're only making a web application, the procedures introduce an unnecessary level of abstraction and more things to juggle. Having to adjust a table, then a procedure, then a data model is a lot of work when adjusting a single model via the ORM would suffice.
Lastly, procedures couple your code to your database very tightly. If you want to migrate to a different database you have to migrate all the procedures, some of which may need to be heavily rewritten. This sort of migration is significantly easier with an ORM since you can yank out the backend and install a new one without the frontend application knowing the difference.
When should I be using stored procedures instead of just writing the logic directly in my application? I'd like to reap the benefits of stored procedures, but I'd also like to not have my application logic spread out over the database and the application.
Are there any rules of thumb that you can think of in reference to this?
Wow... I'm going to swim directly against the current here and say, "almost always". There are a laundry list of reasons - some/many of which I'm sure others would argue. But I've developed apps both with and without the use of stored procs as a data access layer, and it has been my experience that well written stored procedures make it so much easier to write your application. Then there's the well-documented performance and security benefits.
This depends entirely on your environment. The answer to the question really isn't a coding problem, or even an analysis issue, but a business decision.
If your database supports just one application, and is reasonably tightly integrated with it, then it's better, for reasons of flexibility, to place your logic inside your application program. Under these circumstances handling the database simply as a plain data repository using common functionality looses you little and gains flexibility - with vendors, implementation, deployment and much else - and many of the purist arguments that the 'databases are for data' crowd make are demonstratively true.
On the other hand if your are handling a corporate database, which can generally be identified by having multiple access paths into it, then it is highly advisable to screw down the security as far as you can. At the very least all appropriate constraints should enabled, and if possible access to the data should be through views and procedures only. Whining programmers should be ignored in these cases as...
With a corporate database the asset is valuable and invalid data or actions can have business-threatening consequences. Your primary concern is safeguarding the business, not how convenient access is for your coders.
Such databases are by definition accessed by more than one application. You need to use the abstraction that stored procedures offer so the database can be changed when application A is upgraded and you don't have the resource to upgrade application B.
Similarly the encapsulation of business logic in SPs rather than in application code allows changes to such logic to be implemented across the business more easily and reliably than if such logic is embedded in application code. For example if a tax calculation changes it's less work, and more robust, if the calculation has to be changed in one SP than multiple applications. The rule of thumb here is that the business rule should be implemented at the closest point to the data where it is unique - so if you have a specialist application then the logic for that app can be implemented in that app, but logic more widely applicable to the business should be implemented in SPs.
Coders who dive into religious wars over the use or not of SPs generally have worked in only one environment or the other so they extrapolate their limited experience into a cast-iron position - which indeed will be perfectly defensible and correct in the context from which they come but misses the big picture. As always, you should make you decision on the needs of the business/customers/users and not on the which type of coding methodology you prefer.
I tend to avoid stored procedures. The debugging tools tend to be more primitive. Error reporting can be harder (vs your server's log file) and, to me at least, it just seems to add another language for no real gain.
There are cases where it can be useful, particularly when processing large amounts of data on the server and of course for database triggers that you can't do in code.
Other than that though, I tend to do everything in code and treat the database as a big dump of data rather than something I run code on.
Consider Who Needs Stored Procedures, Anyways?:
For modern databases and real world
usage scenarios, I believe a Stored
Procedure architecture has serious
downsides and little practical
benefit. Stored Procedures should be
considered database assembly language:
for use in only the most performance
critical situations.
and Why I do not use Stored Procedures:
The absolute worst thing you can do,
and it's horrifyingly common in the
Microsoft development world, is to
split related functionality between
sproc's and middle tier code.
Grrrrrrrr. You just make the code
brittle and you increase the
intellectual overhead of understanding
a system.
I said this in a comment, but I'm going to say it again here.
Security, Security, SECURITY.
When sql code is embedded in your application, you have to expose the underlying tables to direct access. This might sound okay at first. Until you get hit with some sql injection that scrambles all the varchar fields in your database.
Some people might say that they get around this by using magic quotes or some other way of properly escaping their embedded sql. The problem, though, is the one query a dev didn't escape correctly. Or, the dev that forgot to not allow code to be uploaded. Or, the web server that was cracked which allowed the attacker to upload code. Or,... you get the point. It's hard to cover all your bases.
My point is, all modern databases have security built in. You can simply deny direct table access (select, insert, update, and deletes) and force everything to go through your s'procs. By doing so generic attacks will no longer work. Instead the attacker would have to take the time to learn the intimate details of your system. This increases their "cost" in terms of time spent and stops drive by and worm attacks.
I know we can't secure ourselves against everything, but if you take the time to architect your apps so that the cost to crack it far outweighs the benefits then you are going to serious reduce your potential of data loss. That means taking advantage of all the security tools available to you.
Finally, as to the idea of not using s'procs because you might have to port to a different rdbms: First, most apps don't change database servers. Second, in the event that it's a real possibility, you have to code using ANSI sql anyway; which you can do in your procs. Third, you would have to reevaluate all of your sql code no matter what and it's a whole lot easier when that code is in one place. Fourth, all modern databases now support s'procs. Fifth, when using s'proc's you can custom tune your sql for the database it's running under to take advantage of that particular database's sql extensions.
Basically when you have to perform operations involving data that do not need to get out of the database. For example, you want to update one table with data from another, it makes little sense to get the data out and then back in if you can do it all in one single shot to the db.
Another situation where it may be acceptable to use stored procedures is when you are 100% sure you will never deploy your application to another database vendor. If you are an Oracle shop and you have lots of applications talking to the same database it may make sense to have stored procedures to make sure all of them talk to the db in a consistent manner.
Complicated database queries for me tend to end up as stored procs. Another thought to consider is that your database might be completely separate and distinct from the application. Lets say you run an Oracle DB and you essentially are building an API for other application developers at your organization to call into. You can hide the complicated stuff from them and provide a stored proc in its place.
A very simple example:
registerUser(username, password)
might end up running a few different queries (check if it exists, create entries in a preference table, etc) and you might want to encapsulate them.
Of course, different people will have different perspectives (a DBA versus a Programmer).
I used stored procs in 1 of 3 scenarios:
Speed
When speed is of the utmost importance, stored procedures provide an excellent method
Complexity
When I'm updating several tables and the code logic might change down the road, I can update the stored proc and avoid a recompile. Stored procedures are an excellent black box method for updating lots of data in a single stroke.
Transactions
When I'm working an insert, delete or update that spans multiple tables. I wrap the whole thing in a transaction. If there is an error, it's very easy to roll back the transaction and throw an error to avoid data corruption.
The bottom 2 are very do-able in code. However, stored procedures provide an black-box method of working when complex and transaction level operations are important. Otherwise, stick with code level database operations.
Security used to be one of the reasons. However, with LINQ and other ORMs out there, code level DAL operations are much more secure than they've been in the past. Stored procs ARE secure but so are ORMs like LINQ.
We use stored procedures for all of our reporting needs. They can usually retrieve the data faster and in a way that the report can just spit out directly instead of having to do any kind of calculations or similar.
We also will use stored procedures for complex or complicated queries we need to do that would be difficult to read if they were otherwise inside of our codebase.
It can also be very useful as a matter of encapsulation and in the philosophy of DRY. For instance I use stored functions for calculations inside a table that I need for several queries inside the code. This way I use the better performance as well as the ensuring that the calculation is always done the same way.
I would not use it for higher functionality or logic the should be in the business logic layer of an architecture, but focused on the model layer, where the functionality is clearly focused on the database design and possible flexibility of changing the database design without breaking the API to the other layers.
I tend to always use stored procedures. Personally, I find it makes everything easier to maintain. Then there is the security and performance considerations.
Just make sure you write clean, well laid out and well documented stored procedures.
When all the code is in a stored proc, it is far easier to refactor the database when needed. Changes to logic are far easier to push as well. It is also far far easier to performance tune and sooner or later performance tuning becomes necessary for most database applications.
From my experience, stored procedures can be very useful for building reporting databases/pipelines, however, I'd argue that you should avoid using stored procedures within applications as they can impede a team's velocity and any security risks of building queries within an application can be mitigated by the use of modern tooling/frameworks.
Why might we avoid it?
To avoid tight-coupling between applications and databases. If we use stored procedures, we won't be able to easily change our underlying database in the future because we'd have to either:
Migrate stored procedures from one database (e.g. DB2) to another (e.g. SQL Server) which could be painstakingly time-consuming or...
Migrate all the queries to the applications themselves (or potentially in a shared library)
Because code-first is a thing. There a several ORMs which can enable us to target any database and even manage the table schemas without ever needing to touch the database. ORMs such as Entity Framework or Dapper allow developers to focus on building features instead of writing stored procedures and wiring them up in the application.
It's yet another thing that developers need to learn in order to be productive. Instead, they can write the queries as part of the applications which makes the queries far simpler to understand, maintain, and modify by the developers who are building new features and/or fixing bugs.
Ultimately, it depends on what developers are most comfortable with.
If a developer has a heavy SQL background, they might go with Stored Procs.
If a developer has lots of app development experience, they might prefer queries in code. Personally, I think having queries in code can enable developers to move much faster and security concerns can be mitigated by ensuring teams are following best practices (e.g. parameterized queries, ORM). Stored procs aren't a "silver bullet" for system security.
Does the use of procedures still make sense in 202X?
Maybe in low level and rare scenarios or if we write code for a legacy companies with unfounded restrictions, stored procedure should be an option.
If entire logic is in the database, should I need a dba to change it?
No. In modern platforms, the requirement of a DBA to change the business logic is not an option.
Hot modification of stored procedures without dev or staging phases, area a crazy idea.
How easy is to maintain a procedure with dozens of lines, cursors and other low level database features vs a OOP objects in any modern language in which a junior developer is able to maintain?
This answers itself
Hide tables from my development team for security reasons sounds very crazy for me, in these times in which agility and well documentation are everything.
Modern development team with a modern database, should not worry about security. What's more, they need access to sandbox version of database to reduce the time of its deliverables.
With modern ORMs, ESBs, ETLs and the constant increase of cpu power, stored procedures are not an option anymore. Should I invest time and money in these tools, to create at final: one big stored procedure?
Of course, not.
On top of the speed and security considerations, I tend to stick as much in Stored Procedures as possible for ease of maintenance and alterations. If you put the logic in your application, and find later that sql logic has an error or needs to work differently in some manner, you have to recompile and redeploy the whole app in many cases (especially if it's a client side app such as WPF, Win-Forms, etc). If you keep the logic in the stored proc, all you have to do is update the proc and you never have to touch the application.
I agree that they should be used often and well.
The use case I think is extremely compelling and extremely useful is if you are taking in a lot of raw information that should be separated out into several tables, where the some of the data may have records that already exist and need to be connected by foreign key id, then you can just IF EXISTS checks and insert if it doesn't or return key if it does, which makes everything more uniform, succinct, and maintainable in the long run.
The only case where I would suggest against using them is if you are doing a lot of logic or number crunching between queries which is best done in the app server OR if you are working for a company where keeping all of the logic in the code is important for maintainability/understanding what is happening. If you have a git repository full of everything anyone would need and is easily understandable, that can be very valuable.
The stored procedures are a method of collecting operations that should be done together on database side, while still keeping them on database side.
This includes:
Populating several tables from one rowsource
Checking several tables against different business rules
Performing operations that cannot be efficiently performed using set-based approach
etc.
The main problem with stored procedures is that they are hard to maintain.
You, therefore, should make stored procedures as easy to maintain as all your other code.
I have an article on this in my blog:
Schema junk
I've had some very bad experiences with this.
I'm not opposed to stored procedures in their place, but gratuitous use of stored procedures can be very expensive.
First, stored procedures run on the database server. That means that if you have a multi-server environment with 50 webservers and one database server, instead of spreading workloads over 50 cheap machines, you load up one expensive one (since the database server is commonly built as a heavyweight server). And you're risking creating a single-point-of-failure.
Secondly, it's not very easy to write an application solely in stored procedures, although I ran into one that made a superhuman effort to try to. So you end up with something that's expensive to maintain: It's implemented in 2 different programming languages, and the source code is often not all in one place either, since stored procedures are definitively stored in the DBMS and not in a source archive. Assuming that someone ever managed/bothered o pull them out of the database server and source-archive them at all.
So aside from a fairly messy app architecture, you also limit the set of qualified chimpanzees who can maintain it, as multiple skills are required.
On the other hand, stored procedures are extremely useful, IF:
You need to maintain some sort of data integrity across multiple systems. That is, the stored logic doesn't belong to any single app, but you need consistent behavior from all participating apps. A certain amount of this is almost inevitable in modern-day apps in the form of foreign keys and triggers, but occasionally, major editing and validation may be warranted as well.
You need performance that can only be achieved by running logic on the database server itself and not as a client. But, as I said, when you do that, you're eating into the total system resources of the DBMS server. So it behooves you to ensure that if there are significant bits of the offending operation that CAN be offloaded onto clients, you can separate them out and leave the most critical stuff for the DBMS server.
A particular scenario you're likely to benefit involves the situation around the "(n+1)" scalability problem. Any kind of multidimensional/hierarchical situation is likely to involve this scenario.
Another scenario would involve use cases where it does some protocol when handling the tables (hint: defined steps which transactions are likely to be involved), this could benefit from locality of reference: Being in the server, queries might benefit. OTOH, you could supply a batch of statements directly into the server. Specially when you're on a XA environment and you have to access federated databases.
If you are talking business logic rather than just "Should I use sprocs in general" I would say you should put business logic in sprocs when you are carrying out large set based operations or any other time executing the logic would require a large number of calls to the db from the app.
It also depends on your audience. Is ease of installation and portability across DBMSs important to you?
If your program should be easy to install and easy to run on different database systems then you should stay away from stored procedures and also look out for non-portable SQL in your code.
Which is better? Or use and OR mapper with SP's? If you have a system with SP's already, is an OR mapper worth it?
I like ORM's because you don't have to reinvent the wheel. That being said, it completely depends on your application needs, development style and that of the team.
This question has already been covered Why is parameterized SQL generated by NHibernate just as fast as a stored procedure?
There is nothing good to be said about stored procedures. There were a necessity 10 years ago but every single benefit of using sprocs is no longer valid. The two most common arguments are regarding security and performance. The "sending stuff over the wire" crap doesn't hold either, I can certainly create a query dynamically to do everything on the server too. One thing the sproc proponents won't tell you is that it makes updates impossible if you are using column conflict resolution on a merge publication. Only DBAs who think they are the database overlord insist on sprocs because it makes their job look more impressive than it really is.
This has been discussed at length on previous questions.
What are the pros and cons to keeping SQL in Stored Procs versus Code
At my work, we mostly do line of business apps - contract work.
For this type of business, I'm a huge fan of ORM. About four years ago (when the ORM tools were less mature) we studied up on CSLA and rolled our own simplified ORM tool that we use in most of our applications,including some enterprise-class systems that have 100+ tables.
We estimate that this approach (which of course includes a lot of code generation) creates a time savings of up to 30% in our projects. Seriously, it's rediculous.
There is a small performance trade-off, but it's insubstantial as long as you have a decent understanding of software development. There are always exceptions that require flexibility.
For instance, extremely data-intensive batch operations should still be handled in specialized sprocs if possible. You probably don't want to send 100,000 huge records over the wire if you could do it in a sproc right on the database.
This is the type of problem that newbie devs run into whether they're using ORM or not. They just have to see the results and if they're competent, they will get it.
What we've seen in our web apps is that usually the most difficult to solve performance bottlenecks are no longer database-related even with ORM. Rather, tey're on the front-end (browser) due to bandwidth, AJAX overhead, etc. Even mid-range database servers are incredibly powerful these days.
Of course, other shops who work on much larger high-demand systems may have different experiences there. :)
Stored procedures hands down. OR Mappers are language specific, and often add graphic slowdowns.
Stored procedures means you're not limited by the language interface, and you can merely tack on new interfaces to the database in forwards compatible ways.
My personal opinion of OR Mappers is their existence highlights a design flaw in the popular structure of databases. Database developers should realize the tasks people are trying to achieve with complicated OR-Mappers and create server-side utilities that assist in performing this task.
OR Mappers also are epic targets of the "leaky abstraction" syndrome ( Joel On Software: Leaky Abstractions )
Where its quite easy to find things it just cant handle because of the abstraction layer not being psychic.
Stored procedures are better, in my view, because they can have an independent security configuration from the underlying tables.
This means you can allow specific operations without out allowing writes/reads to specific tables. It also limits the damage that people can do if they discover a SQL injection exploit.
Definitely ORMs. More flexible, more portable (generally they tend to have portability built in). In case of slowness you may want to use caching or hand-tuned SQL in hot spots.
Generally stored procedures have several problems with maintainability.
separate from application (so many changes have now to be made in two places)
generally harder to change
harder to put under version control
harder to make sure they're updated (deployment issues)
portability (already mentioned)
I personally have found that SP's tend to be faster performance wise, at least for the large data items that I execute on a regular basis. But I know many people that swear by OR tools and wouldn't do ANYTHING else.
I would argue that using an OR mapper will increase readability and maintainability of your applications source code, while using SP will increase the performance of the application.
They are not actually mutually exclusive, though to your point they usually are so.
The advantage of using Object Relational mapping is that you can swap out data sources. Not only database structure, but you could use any data source. With advent web services / Service-oriented architecture / ESB's, in a larger corporation, it would be wise to consider having a higher level separation of concerns than what you could get in stored procedures. However, in smaller companies and in application that will never use a different data source, then SP's can fit the bill fine. And one last point, it is not necessary to use an OR mapper to get the abstraction. My former team had great success by simply using an adapter model using Spring.NET to plug-in the data source.
# Kent Fredrick
My personal opinion of OR Mappers is their existence highlights a design flaw in the popular structure of databases"
I think you're talking about the difference between the relational model and object-oriented model. This is actually why we need ORMs, but the implementations of these models were done on purpose - it is not a design flow - it is just how things turned out to be historically.
Use stored procedures where you have identified a performance bottleneck. if you haven't identified a bottleneck, what are you doing with premature optimisation?
Use stored procedures where you are concerned about security access to a particular table.
Use stored procs when you have a SQL wizard who is prepared to sit and write complex queries that join together loads of tables in a legacy database- to do the things that are hard in an OR mapper.
Use the OR mapper for the other (at least) 80% of your database: where the selects and updates are so routine as to make access through stored procedures alone a pointless exercise in manual coding, and where updates are so infrequent that there is no performance cost. Use an OR mapper to automate the easy stuff.
Most OR mappers can talk to stored procs for the rest.
You should not use stored procs assuming that they're faster than a sql statement in a string, this is not necessarily the case in the last few versions of MS SQL server.
You do not need to use stored procs to thwart SQL injection attacks, there are other ways to do make sure that your query parameters are strongly typed and not just string-concatenated.
You don't need to use an OR mapper to get a POCO domain model, but it does help.
If you already have a data API that's exposed as sprocs, you'd need to justify a major architectural overhaul to go to ORM.
For a green-fields build, I'd evaluate several things:
If there's a dedicated DBA on the team, I'd lean to sprocs
If there's more than one application touching the same DB I'd lean to sprocs
If there's no possibility of database migration ever, I'd lean to sprocs
If I'm trying to implement MVCC in the DB, I'd lean to sprocs
If I'm deploying this as a product with potentially multiple backend dbs (MySql, MSSql, Oracle), I'd lean to ORM
If I'm on a tight deadline, I'd lean to ORM, since it's a faster way to create my domain model and keep it in sync with the data model (with appropriate tooling).
If I'm exposing the same domain model in multiple ways (web app, web service, RIA client), I'll lean to ORM as then data model is then hidden behind my ORM facade, making a robust domain model is more valuable to me.
I think performance is a bit of a red herring; hibernate seems to perform nearly as well or better than hand-coded SQL (due to it's caching tiers), and it's easy to write a bad query in your sproc either way.
The most important criteria are probably the team's skillset and long-term database portability needs.
Well the SP's are already there. It doesn't make sense to can them really. I guess does it make sense to use a mapper with SP's?
"I'm trying to drive in a nail. Should I use the heel of my shoe or a glass bottle?"
Both Stored Procedures and ORMs are difficult and annoying to use for a developer (though not necessarily for a DBA or architect, respectively), because they incur a start-up cost and higher maintenance cost that doesn't guarantee a pay-off.
Both will pay off well if the requirements aren't expected to change much over the lifespan of the system, but they will get in your way if you're building the system to discover the requirements in the first place.
Straight-coded SQL or quasi-ORM like LINQ and ActiveRecord is better for build-to-discover projects (which happen in the enterprise a lot more than the PR wants you to think).
Stored Procedures are better in a language-agnostic environment, or where fine-grained control over permissions is required. They're also better if your DBA has a better grasp of the requirements than your programmers.
Full-blown ORMs are better if you do Big Design Up Front, use lots of UML, want to abstract the database back-end, and your architect has a better grasp of the requirements than either your DBA or programmers.
And then there's option #4: Use all of them. A whole system is not usually just one program, and while many programs may talk to the same database, they could each use whatever method is appropriate both for the program's specific task, and for its level of maturity. That is: you start with straight-coded SQL or LINQ, then mature the program by refactoring in ORM and Stored Procedures where you see they make sense.