I'm firmly on the side of stored procs assuming you don't cheat and use dynamic SQL in the stored proc. First, using stored procs allows the dba to set permissions at the stored proc level and not the table level. This is critical not only to combating SQL injection attacts but towards preventing insiders from directly accessing the database and changing things. This is a way to help prevent fraud. No database that contains personal information (SSNs, Credit card numbers, etc) or that in anyway creates financial transactions should ever be accessed except through strored procedures. If you use any other method you are leaving your database wide open for individuals in the company to create fake financial transactions or steal data that can be used for identity theft.

存储的proc也比从应用程序发送的SQL更容易维护和性能调优。它们还允许dba查看数据库结构更改对数据访问方式的影响。我从未遇到过允许动态访问数据库的优秀dba。

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.

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。

在安全性方面，存储过程要安全得多。一些人认为，无论如何，所有的访问都将通过应用程序进行。许多人忘记了一件事，即大多数安全漏洞来自公司内部。想想有多少开发人员知道应用程序的“隐藏”用户名和密码?

此外，正如MatthieuF所指出的，由于应用程序(无论是在桌面服务器还是web服务器上)和数据库服务器之间的往返次数减少，性能可以得到很大的提高。

In my experience the abstraction of the data model through stored procedures also vastly improves maintainability. As someone who has had to maintain many databases in the past, it's such a relief when confronted with a required model change to be able to simply change a stored procedure or two and have the change be completely transparent to ALL outside applications. Many times your application isn't the only one pointed at a database - there are other applications, reporting solutions, etc. so tracking down all of those affected points can be a hassle with open access to the tables.

我还将在加分栏中加上检查，以使SQL编程掌握在专门的人员手中，并使sp更容易隔离和测试/优化代码。

我看到的一个缺点是，许多语言不允许传递表参数，因此传递未知的数据值可能很烦人，一些语言仍然无法处理从单个存储过程中检索多个结果集(尽管后者在这方面并不使sp比内联SQL差)。

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。

我更喜欢使用O/R映射器，如LLBLGen Pro。

它为您提供了相对轻松的数据库可移植性，允许您使用强类型对象用与应用程序相同的语言编写数据库访问代码，并且在我看来，允许您更灵活地处理所拉回的数据。

实际上，能够使用强类型对象是使用O/R Mapper的充分理由。