较小的日志

存储过程的另一个小优点是没有提到的:当涉及到SQL流量时，基于sp的数据访问产生的流量要少得多。当您监视流量进行分析和分析时，这一点变得非常重要——日志将会更小且可读。

Something that I haven't seen mentioned thus far: the people who know the database best aren't always the people that write the application code. Stored procedures give the database folks a way to interface with programmers that don't really want to learn that much about SQL. Large--and especially legacy--databases aren't the easiest things to completely understand, so programmers might just prefer a simple interface that gives them what they need: let the DBAs figure out how to join the 17 tables to make that happen.

话虽如此，用于编写存储过程的语言(PL/SQL就是一个臭名昭著的例子)是相当残酷的。它们通常不提供您在当今流行的命令式语言、OOP或函数式语言中看到的任何细节。认为COBOL。

因此，请坚持使用仅抽象了关系细节的存储过程，而不是那些包含业务逻辑的存储过程。

存储过程。

如果出现错误或者逻辑稍有变化，您不必重新编译项目。此外，它允许从不同的来源访问，而不仅仅是在项目中编写查询的一个地方。

我不认为维护存储过程更难，你不应该直接在数据库中编写它们，而应该先在单独的文件中编写，然后你可以在任何你需要设置的DB上运行它们。

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.

存储过程的优点:

更容易检查代码。

耦合更少，因此更容易测试。

更容易调谐。

从网络流量的角度来看，性能通常更好——如果您有一个游标或类似的东西，那么就不会多次访问数据库

您可以更容易地保护对数据的访问，删除对表的直接访问，通过procs加强安全性——这也允许您相对快速地找到更新表的任何代码。

如果涉及到其他服务(如Reporting服务)，您可能会发现将所有逻辑存储在存储过程中，而不是存储在代码中，并且必须复制它会更容易

缺点:

对开发人员来说更难管理的是:脚本的版本控制:每个人都有自己的数据库吗?版本控制系统是否与数据库和IDE集成在一起?

我还没有找到一种在源代码控制中轻松维护存储过程的好方法，使其与代码库一样无缝。这是不会发生的。仅这一点就使得在代码中添加SQL对我来说是值得的。在现代系统中，性能差异可以忽略不计。