对于Microsoft SQL Server，您应该尽可能使用存储过程来帮助执行计划缓存和重用。为什么要优化计划重用?因为生成执行计划的成本相当高。

Although the caching and reuse of execution plans for ad-hoc queries has improved significantly in later editions of SQL server (especially 2005 and 2008) there are still far fewer issues with plan reuse when dealing with stored procedures than there are for ad-hoc queries. For example, SQL server will only re-use an execution plan if the plan text matches exactly - right down to comments and white space, for example, if each of the following lines of SQL were to be executed independently, none of them would use the same execution plan:

SELECT MyColumn FROM MyTable WHERE id = @id
select MyColumn from MyTable WHERE id = @id
SELECT MyColumn  FROM MyTable WHERE id = @id
SELECT MyColumn FROM MyTable WHERE id = @id -- "some comment"
SELECT MyColumn FROM MyTable WHERE id = @id -- "some other comment"

除此之外,如果你不显式地指定类型的参数然后有一个好的机会,SQL Server可能出错,例如如果您执行上面的查询与输入4,然后用@ id查询SQL Server将parametrise SMALLINT(或可能是一个非常小的整数),所以如果你然后执行相同的查询@ id的说4000,SQL Server将parametrise INT,而不会重用相同的缓存。

我认为还有其他一些问题，老实说，大多数问题都可以解决——特别是在SQL Server的后续版本中，但是存储过程通常会提供更多的控制。

对于Microsoft SQL Server，您应该尽可能使用存储过程来帮助执行计划缓存和重用。为什么要优化计划重用?因为生成执行计划的成本相当高。

Although the caching and reuse of execution plans for ad-hoc queries has improved significantly in later editions of SQL server (especially 2005 and 2008) there are still far fewer issues with plan reuse when dealing with stored procedures than there are for ad-hoc queries. For example, SQL server will only re-use an execution plan if the plan text matches exactly - right down to comments and white space, for example, if each of the following lines of SQL were to be executed independently, none of them would use the same execution plan:

SELECT MyColumn FROM MyTable WHERE id = @id
select MyColumn from MyTable WHERE id = @id
SELECT MyColumn  FROM MyTable WHERE id = @id
SELECT MyColumn FROM MyTable WHERE id = @id -- "some comment"
SELECT MyColumn FROM MyTable WHERE id = @id -- "some other comment"

除此之外,如果你不显式地指定类型的参数然后有一个好的机会,SQL Server可能出错,例如如果您执行上面的查询与输入4,然后用@ id查询SQL Server将parametrise SMALLINT(或可能是一个非常小的整数),所以如果你然后执行相同的查询@ id的说4000,SQL Server将parametrise INT,而不会重用相同的缓存。

我认为还有其他一些问题，老实说，大多数问题都可以解决——特别是在SQL Server的后续版本中，但是存储过程通常会提供更多的控制。

我站在代码这一边。我们构建了所有应用程序(包括web和客户端)使用的数据访问层，所以从这个角度来看这是DRY。它简化了数据库部署，因为我们只需要确保表模式是正确的。它简化了代码维护，因为我们不需要查看源代码和数据库。

在与数据模型的紧密耦合方面，我没有遇到太多问题，因为我看不出哪里有可能真正打破这种耦合。应用程序及其数据在本质上是耦合的。

@Terrapin - scprocs同样容易受到注射攻击。正如我所说:

总是参数化所有的查询-永远不要内联用户输入的东西，你会没事的。

这适用于sprocs和动态Sql。

我不确定不重新编译你的应用程序是一个优势。我的意思是，在重新上线之前，您已经针对该代码(应用程序和DB)运行了单元测试。

@Guy -是的，你是对的，sproc确实让你控制应用程序用户，这样他们就只能执行sproc，而不是底层的操作。

我的问题是:如果所有人都通过你的应用程序访问它，使用连接和用户只有有限的更新/插入权限等，这个额外的级别是否增加了安全性或额外的管理?

我的观点是后者。如果他们已经破坏了您的应用程序，可以重新编写它，那么他们还有很多其他的攻击可以使用。

如果动态内联代码，Sql注入仍然可以针对这些spprocs执行，所以黄金法则仍然适用，所有用户输入必须始终参数化。

我非常支持代码而不是SPROC。第一个原因是保持代码紧密耦合，第二个原因是源代码控制的便利性，而不需要大量自定义实用程序。

在我们的DAL中，如果我们有非常复杂的SQL语句，我们通常将它们作为资源文件，并在需要时更新它们(这也可以是一个单独的程序集，并在每个db中交换，等等……)

这使得我们的代码和sql调用存储在同一个版本控制中，而不会“忘记”运行一些外部应用程序进行更新。

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.