RE: More Ammo Against Dynamic SQL?
- From: "Mark W. Farnham" <mwf@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <kjped1313@xxxxxxxxx>, "'oracle Freelists'" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:49:36 -0500
Toons and Richard gave you some very nice ones.
To those I would add the ability, in the event that your application
includes access over a wide area, to encode (and document of course) your
packages, procedures, and functions with short names so that instead of
transmitting many Ks of sqlcode, your calls across whatever network you're
across are a few characters for the package name, a few characters for the
procedure or function name, plus the required inbound parameters and any
results that are retrived. You'd be surprised.
mwf
_____
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Kellyn Pedersen
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:01 PM
To: oracle Freelists
Subject: More Ammo Against Dynamic SQL?
I am working on a presentation to convince my company against some of the
dastardly dynamic SQL that we have in our code. We perform everything from
inserts, updates, deletes, selects and CTAS' all with dynamic SQL and it's
killing me!
I would love any new reasons NOT to use it, as I have all the standard
reasons like, inability to reuse sql in the buffer, parsing issues, bind
peeking issues, execution plan instability, etc..
Thanks for the assist! :)
Kellyn Pedersen
Multi-Platform DBA
I-Behavior Inc.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kellynpedersen
"Go away before I replace you with a very small and efficient shell
script..."
Other related posts:
