The Weird and The Wonderful

Tomz_KV wrote:
For a in-house program, if the developer is not avaialble for making changes and re-compiling, a database guy could easily achieve the same goal by modifying the storedproc.

This is NOT a valid reason for choosing one technology over another.

Changing logic at the database level is a BIG deal.
This isn't something you should be roping someone into simply because you can't find a handy developer. And hey! it's in the DB so a DBA should be able to handle it.

Does the DBA actually understand the intent of the original code? Or the full implications of changing it?
Or is he JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We treat a DB implemented API like it's some slow cousin from the country that can be pushed around and manipulated by anyone who can boot up TOAD.

It's Code dammit. It deserves the same amount of planning, control, respect and fear that VB or C# or C++ code commands.

The technical aspects of making a change to some VB isn't really all that different to changing a Stored Proc. Sure, deployment "might" require a little more effort, depending on your set up.

Technically making the change and deploying it isn't the bit that causes problems. It's the unforseen side effects of the change that will have you at your desk cursing at 8pm on a Friday night when your family is at home waiting for you.

And if it's your app that's breaking, the DBA that was just following orders isn't going to be by your side on Friday Night.

-Rd

Hit any user to continue.

After 15 years writing/debugging SQL oriented financial apps, I must disagree. The benefit to stored procedures boils down to how easy it is to code it in ADO/.NET/etc vs. a Stored proc. except when we are talking centralized commits and things having to do with exclusive access to a row/table. Those problems are best expressed in a Stored proc (which is centralized where the exclusive access is required), since tools like ADO are extremely wordy and obfuscated in comparison to the statements required to express them in PL/SQL or T/sql. Parallel queries and caching in modern databases have made the location of most SQL to be compiled totally unimportant. 20 years ago? You'd have a point. Now? Nope. Curious if what I'm saying is accurate? Try running a performance analyzer on such things when used more than once (like in a running system).

First off: Thank you for your rant. It's a one based on experience. If if folks don't agree or are quick to have a comment: I appreciate your frustration.

Now my turn for a comment or thought: I'll keep it general as possible.

I went into a database seminar related to a now defunc product that was one of the best analytic tools I've ever used in my entire career.. and this was in 2001! I've yet to see it's match today. It was called "BroadBase" and it was awesome. Anyway; before they were bought and the software purposely taken off the market even though it didn't compete with the new owner's products... I went to a seminar they hosted.

In that seminar we covered and discussed things like data-marts, data ware-housing, reporting, applications, various database vendors and design in general.

Some of the major points I remember quite clearly was where do you put your business logic: In the database or in the application? Now there are folks who say one, the other or both. Here were the things that interested me: they aren't answers.. but they are good things to consider when deciding:

1: Placing Business Rules and logic into the database (foreign keys, PL SQL etC) to help deliver information and protect data integrity put more reliance on the particular Database vendor. (Puts responsibility for data integrity on the database's shoulders)

2: Putting business rules and logic into your application makes your application less dependent on the specific DBMS your using

3: If multiple applications use the same database: Option 1 seems like a good option but putting business rules into a shared code base all systems can leverage gives benefits of option 2 but might be impossible or too difficult to implement enterprise wide.

So for me: I don't have an argument for one way or another. I'm also in agreement with other comments in this thread to the tune that it's not necessarily tools but skill that makes the difference in quality for finished systems.

I also am slow to bash folks for ugly systems I'm asked to fix because without knowing what environment the folks were working under: budget; time; boss; requirements; chief architect passed away mid project... god forbid...

My Opinion is: There isn't a one size fits all solution: consider ALL details; short term and long term goals of the project; consider your team, your budget, and make it happen as best you and your team can!

Know way too many languages... master of none!

JasonPSage wrote:
My Opinion is: There isn't a one size fits all solution: consider ALL details; short term and long term goals of the project; consider your team, your budget, and make it happen as best you and your team can!

You come on here being all reasonable and well thought out.
We're trying to have an endless pointless quasi-religious argument here.

Apart from being a spoil sport, you are of course, mostly right. Except for that bit about forgiving people.

-Rd

Hit any user to continue.

LOL! Brilliant.

Richard,

At least you appreciate the fact that knowing hwo to write SQL code does not mean one is a DBA. More often then not it is the DBA who has to deal with porrly designed DML code done by a OOP/Procedural developer then what you've run into. Before you decided on that pay cut just remember that if your good and well sought after you are more flexable and in a better possition when the job market is bad as it is now.

YSLGuru wrote:
Before you decided on that pay cut just remember that if your good and well sought after you are more flexable and in a better possition when the job market is bad as it is now.

I don't have any problem with the job market. I've never had any problem finding work or getting well paid.

What I meant when I mentioned a pay cut is that I'm reaching the point where the money is no longer sufficient compensation for working in environments with bad (or no) development processes and a tangled mess of code.

-Rd

Hit any user to continue.

Ok, although I'm primarily a .NET developer, I'm gonna try to swing the religious discussion the other direction. It does sound you ran into some bad SQL code from a bad developer. Like others said, there are bad .NET developers as well, and there are plenty of programmers that don't store their .NET source code under version control. But you can very easily just export your db's DDL to a text file and put those under version control. It's so easy there's no excuse to not do it (people who don't should be fired). Furthermore, it's a _lot_ easier writing SQL code in e.g. SSMS where you have code completion, and where you can debug your SQL code. How are you going to debug your SQL that you wrote in strings in C#? There are good arguments for having all DB access go through sprocs (e.g. security is easier to manage). SQL injection is mostly not an argument (either way), as you can do parameterized queries in ADO just fine.

Having a insulation layer of sprocs can handle the core of business rules to keep the data mostly consistent. As far as I know you can't namespace your SQL code unfortunately, so it isn't really suitable to build huge frameworks in your SQL layer. It should just be the first line of defense keeping the integrity of the data. There will also be business logic in the C# layers on top of that, and possibly on the web layers (javascript an d such) as well. There's no way of putting business logic 100% in one neat layer (although you can apparently generate javascript to do some validation apparantly).

So things are not black and white, but they are shades of gray, and it takes years to judge the shades right and to judge how much weight should be put into which layer. The way I look at it, in a database centric application, there should be considerable weight on the database design and SQL code (sprocs) surrounding it, and it should not be regarded as just a dumb store of data for your super duper OO designed architecture. To put a number on it, I'd say around 30-40% of effort should be database related. If you're thinking too OO, then sooner or later you'll run into the impedance mismatch with the relational world. You'll build a much better system if you know _and_ how to design a database and write decent SQL code _and_ how to build the multi-tier business app on top of that. People that really don't want to know about the database, but are still gonna mess around with it, are most likely going to build a crappy system.

Wout

wout de zeeuw wrote:
It does sound you ran into some bad SQL code from a bad developer.

No. I've run into 14 years of bad code from a host of developers, many of whom were quite good programmers, but when it came to DB stuff they (and I've done this myself) produced bad code.

I see the same thing with Javascript all the time incidently.

Read this other post for a perfect explaination of why I think there is something about Stored Procs that guide otherwise decent programmers into trouble.

http://www.codeproject.com/Feature/CodingHorrors.aspx?msg=3640078#xx3640078xx[^]

-Richard

Hit any user to continue.

Mwhoa, this whole thread is getting quite one sided because on CodeProject you are only getting the point of view of programmers and not of DBA's. So all the programmers are going to be naturally be inclined to think SQL and sprocs are inferior. You should post the same message on www.sqlservercentral.com[^] and see what responses you're getting there.

If a "good" programmer, writes bad SQL, then he's a bad SQL programmer, and he shouldn't be writing any. Either you let someone write SQL that has the skills, or you don't and you get sh*tty SQL.

About the dependencies that Trajan McGill is talking about: even in SSMS for SQL Server Express you can just right click a sproc and "View Dependencies". You can also debug SQL, step into sprocs etc. So his argument that you can't touch anything because you can't see the dependencies is incorrect. Furthermore also in .NET you often have dependencies outside the scope of your VS solution, which are also invisible, so in that department I see little difference between SQL/.NET.

Wout

wout de zeeuw wrote:
If a "good" programmer, writes bad SQL, then he's a bad SQL programmer, and he shouldn't be writing any. Either you let someone write SQL that has the skills, or you don't and you get sh***y SQL.

The problem is that DBA's are focused on managing the Database, not developing Apps.

I've yet to work on any project where DBA's where charged with delivering application functionality. Or wanted to.

My problem and the problem I'm trying to get accross in this thread is that the debate about Stored Procedures and Packages tends to focus on the same old stuff...

* Performance (not a valid argument either way for most situations)
* SQL injection (not a valid argument for most situations)
* Abstraction of the Database Structure (not a valid argument either way)

The debate rarely focuses on the things that should be significant.

Do you have the skills, infrastructure and processes in place to actually to DB based development properly?

When one asks this question it's dismissed....

"Oh sure if you have developers that don't know how to write PL/SQL properly then you'll get crappy PL/SQL."

Well guess what? It would appear that the majority of developers don't know how to write good code in their specialty language, allowing them to write PL/SQL which they aren't specialists in is suicide.

And yet, the notion that it would be better to have these developers work exclusively in VB.Net or C# as much as possible is heresy. Nooo Nooo Nooo.....You must use Stored Procs....It's just...Better.

Well it's not better. Not if it's done wrong, which all to often it is.

I also maintain, and will always maintain the languages like PL/SQL are fundamentally unsuited to implementing complex business logic.

-Richard

Hit any user to continue.

Use an ORM and only revert to stored procedures where (and if) performance bottlenecks exist. The application will be cleaner, easier to debug, and you will develop it much faster. If you need more speed, then might want to consider alternatives to .NET. Now bring on the flames!

mutantdna wrote:
easier to debug

Are you aware the Visual Studio allows you to put breakpoints in a SQL Server stored procedure and debug it just as you would C# or VB.Net code?

[Forum Guidelines]

No I was not aware of this - so thanks for the tip. Does it also work for Oracle? MySQL, SQLite? Or is this specific to the MS product stack?

I'm not sure, I've only ever tried it with SQL Server. Though, if you want to research it, this might be a good place to start.

[Forum Guidelines]

mutantdna wrote:
Does it also work for Oracle? MySQL, SQLite?

My understanding is that it will only work for MSSQL. I believe that Microsoft has built in some debugging capability into the Management Studio engine that Visual Studio utilizes.

I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.

aspdotnetdev wrote:
Are you aware the Visual Studio allows you to put breakpoints in a SQL Server stored procedure and debug it just as you would C# or VB.Net code?

Actually it gets better than that. You can write your stored procedures in actual C# or VB.Net if you want.

I've played with it but not really done more than that. Anyone jumped on this bandwagon? Any thoughts?

-Richard

Hit any user to continue.

Indeed, I guess that's called SQL Server CLR Integration. Could be useful, but I'd only use it when necessary, as that does create maintenance burden for the next guy who has to administer the database.

[Forum Guidelines]

have you actually had this work? I've tried and couldn't get it to play nice.

Yeah, worked fine for me. There were some limitations though. Off the top of my head, I think I was unable to view data in table variables or temp tables (though you can create a cursor to loop through each value in the temporary table and set a breakpoint to inspect the resulting variables, one row at a time) and you apparently need to change your connection string so connection pooling isn't used.

[Forum Guidelines]

Funny stuff.

Database related code should remain with the database. Just because in your experiences people don't seem to be able to write good clean sql code doesn't mean its to be avoided. Before a proc is committed to source control or production it should be reviewed just like you should with other code you write. Instead of complaining and avoiding the real world, offer your expertise to help others, offer your time to review and explain the hows and whys of your criticisms. Don't let the end product suffer just because some are not as capable as yourself. Make the best choice of technologies to use, decide on the best way to use them, educate yourselves and your peers.

ohmyletmein wrote:
Instead of complaining and avoiding the real world, offer your expertise to help others, offer your time to review and explain the hows and whys of your criticisms. Don't let the end product suffer just because some are not as capable as yourself.

I have sort of a problem with your post. But you may have just picked me up wrong.

You seem to think that I think I'm some sort of expert looking down my nose at bad programmers. Far from it. I said explicitly I don't think I am qualified to put complex logic into stored procs.

You say that Data related code belongs in the Database. Well where to you draw that line? Ultimately it's all data related logic right? We build apps that manipulate Data.

What it comes down to is that languages like PL/SQL are fundamentally unsuited to representing complex logic.

Here's an example and this is code that comes from Oracle of all companies. I'm trying to change the date on a contract. I have to call a function in package. The log file for toggling that currency runs to over 40 PAGES if I paste it into word.

Other similar small changes produce log files that are over 100 pages. And it isn't becuase the logging is very detailed, it's because there is a shed load of business rules veing validated.

This logic is virtually impossible to debug. It might be possible to rewrite this logic in PL/SQL and improve it but I don't believe it could ever be represented as elegantly and as simply as it could be in proper high level programming language.

PL/SQL is for relatively simple querying and manipulation of data and rudimentary validation. When things get more complicated than that It might not be suitable at all, or if it is "possible" the level of skill requried is frankly beyond the majority of developers (including me).

-Rd

Hit any user to continue.

I agree that complex logic does not have a place in db code, but I also believe that the integrity of data written in he database needs to be ensured by extensive use of constraints, keys, and, most importantly, value validation code. The database should be viewed as a data store that knows just enough to maintain the integrity of the data housed in it, but actual data manipulation should be left to the consuming applications.

I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.

First of all, I have to say I agree with you completely concerning lack of high-quality tools for working with databases. I would like to point out that Red-Gate do have some very good database tools (although, mostly for MSSQL), including support for version control.

My issue with writing all the data access code in the code-base, rather than the database, is that you are still writing SQL! How ever you look at the issue, you still need to write SQL in order to manipulate database and extract/update data. The only difference is where it is written, and I don't believe that writing classes and functions are any better than writing sprocs.

If you think that only sprocs are copied in order to make small changes, or that only sprocs are prone to remain around for years for fear of deletion, why, check out The Daily WTF for multitudes of cases where the same (and worse) happens to code.

I think that the best conclusion that can be made from all that has been shared here, is: we need much better development tools for databases. Tools that make it much easier to write, test and debug SQL (and vendor-specific SQL-based languages). Tools that make it as simple as VS or Eclipse to search and view dependencies and references between database objects. Tools that make it as simple as one click to commit, update and merge version-controlled database objects, and I don't mean exporting a DDL file and versioning that.

Of course, this still doesn't mean that any developer that knows a little C#, VB.NET or Java, can now become an automatic expert at SQL, even if this does seem to be expected by most job advertisements.

I suspect that I used to work for that same globally known company.. and I've seen PL/SQL that would make a grown man sit down and ball like a baby. Think spaghetti code with a very inconsistent use of badly named exceptions (think some exceptions floating up to the top caller, where NO handler existed for it, others being thrown locally but and not handled, etc etc.). I literally had to comment every line of 20 odd routines to figure out that rats nest. I knew the guy that wrote it.. nice guy, but couldn't code for his own life.

That said, in agreement with other posters.. I've also seen such atrocities in other languages. I've been programming for 28 years professionally, and I've had two projects handed to me that were such utter messes that starting over was the only way to go. In both cases I was able to save about 20% of the code base from the gallows, and the rest were sent to their eternal rest.. In the latest (c++): 5 threads, no locks, sleeps used to affect a very bad semblance of synchronization, and the SAME code piece copied like 30 times (it checked device state to make sure that the next statements were going to have an effect). The code was so buggy that in the 20% saved, I had to dig bugs out of it that had been hidden by the more hideous (and spectacularly more fatal) race conditions.

Egad.