将SQL保存在c#源代码或Stored Procs中有哪些优点/缺点?我一直在和一个朋友讨论这个问题,我们正在做一个开源项目(c# ASP。网论坛)。目前,大多数数据库访问都是通过在c#中构建内联SQL并调用SQL Server DB来完成的。所以我在试着确定,对于这个特定的项目,哪个是最好的。
到目前为止,我有:
in Code的优点:
更容易维护-不需要运行SQL脚本来更新查询 更容易移植到另一个DB -没有pros到移植
存储Procs的优点:
性能 安全
将SQL保存在c#源代码或Stored Procs中有哪些优点/缺点?我一直在和一个朋友讨论这个问题,我们正在做一个开源项目(c# ASP。网论坛)。目前,大多数数据库访问都是通过在c#中构建内联SQL并调用SQL Server DB来完成的。所以我在试着确定,对于这个特定的项目,哪个是最好的。
到目前为止,我有:
in Code的优点:
更容易维护-不需要运行SQL脚本来更新查询 更容易移植到另一个DB -没有pros到移植
存储Procs的优点:
性能 安全
当前回答
我通常写OO代码。我猜你们大多数人可能也有同感。在这种上下文中,所有业务逻辑(包括SQL查询)都属于类定义,这在我看来是显而易见的。分割逻辑(部分驻留在对象模型中,部分驻留在数据库中)并不比将业务逻辑放到用户界面中更好。
关于存储过程的安全性优势,在前面的回答中已经说了很多。它们分为两大类:
1)限制直接访问数据。这在某些情况下确实很重要,当你遇到这样的情况时,存储过程几乎是你唯一的选择。然而,根据我的经验,这样的情况是例外而不是规则。
2) SQL injection/parametrized queries. This objection is a red herring. Inline SQL - even dynamically-generated inline SQL - can be just as fully parametrized as any stored proc and it can be done just as easily in any modern language worth its salt. There is no advantage either way here. ("Lazy developers might not bother with using parameters" is not a valid objection. If you have developers on your team who prefer to just concatenate user data into their SQL instead of using parameters, you first try to educate them, then you fire them if that doesn't work, just like you would with developers who have any other bad, demonstrably detrimental habit.)
其他回答
我喜欢存储过程,不知道有多少次我能够使用存储过程对应用程序进行更改,而不会对应用程序产生任何停机时间。
作为Transact SQL的忠实粉丝,调优大型查询已被证明对我非常有用。我已经6年没有写过任何内联SQL了!
@Keith
安全?为什么scprocs会更安全?
存储过程提供了抵御SQL注入攻击的内在保护。
然而,您并没有完全受到保护,因为您仍然可以编写容易受到此类攻击的存储过程(即存储过程中的动态SQL)。
CON
我发现在存储过程中进行大量的处理会使您的DB服务器在扩展您的行为时成为一个单一的不灵活点。
然而,如果您有多个服务器运行您的代码,那么在您的程序中进行所有这些处理而不是sql-server,可能会允许您进行更多的扩展。当然,这并不适用于只进行正常获取或更新的存储procs,而是适用于执行更多处理(如在数据集上循环)的存储procs。
PROS
Performance for what it may be worth (avoids query parsing by DB driver / plan recreation etc) Data manipulation is not embedded in the C/C++/C# code which means I have less low level code to look through. SQL is less verbose and easier to look through when listed separately. Due to the separation folks are able to find and reuse SQL code much easier. Its easier to change things when schema changes - you just have to give the same output to the code and it will work just fine Easier to port to a different database. I can list individual permissions on my stored procedures and control access at that level too. I can profile my data query/ persistence code separate from my data transformation code. I can implement changeable conditions in my stored procedure and it would be easy to customize at a customer site. It becomes easier to use some automated tools to convert my schema and statements together rather than when it is embedded inside my code where I would have to hunt them down. Ensuring best practices for data access is easier when you have all your data access code inside a single file - I can check for queries that access the non performant table or that which uses a higher level of serialization or select *'s in the code etc. It becomes easier to find schema changes / data manipulation logic changes when all of it is listed in one file. It becomes easier to do search and replace edits on SQL when they are in the same place e.g. change / add transaction isolation statements for all stored procs. I and the DBA guy find that having a separate SQL file is easier / convenient when the DBA has to review my SQL stuff. Lastly you don't have to worry about SQL injection attacks because some lazy member of your team did not use parametrized queries when using embedded sqls.
在某些情况下,在代码中动态创建的sql可能比存储的proc具有更好的性能。如果您已经创建了一个存储的proc(例如sp_customersearch),它必须非常灵活,因此具有许多参数,非常复杂,那么您可能可以在运行时在代码中生成一个更简单的sql语句。
有人可能会说,这只是将一些处理从SQL转移到web服务器,但总的来说,这是一件好事。
这种技术的另一个优点是,如果你在SQL分析器中查找,你可以看到你生成的查询,调试它比看到一个存储的带有20个参数的proc调用要容易得多。
Definitely easier to maintain if you put it in a stored procedure. If there's difficult logic involved that will potentially change in the future it is definitely a good idea to put it in the database when you have multiple clients connecting. For example I'm working on an application right now that has an end user web interface and an administrative desktop application, both of which share a database (obviously) and I'm trying to keep as much logic on the database as possible. This is a perfect example of the DRY principle.