the idea of having portable SQL is a myth. 95% of the time you can get way with the same SQL using different DB's but it's the last 5% that will do your head in. Everyone has a "better mousetrap"
and that's the trouble about standards - there's so many to choose from! cheers barry.b -----Original Message----- From: James Cowperthwaite [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 28 May 2004 2:49 PM To: CFAussie Mailing List Subject: [cfaussie] RE: Stored Procedures - worth changing to? Thanks for that info Taco, I guess my hesitation has been that I assumed[1] that my cf code would be more portability eg developing with a mySql db and having the production db as MS SQL. But, as always, more reading required. James [1] Yes, I know assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups :-) On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 14:10, Taco Fleur wrote: > 1. business logic located in the database > 2. stored procedures execute faster as an execution plan is saved > 3. more secure > 4. easier to manage > 5. return lots of result sets with only one call to the sp > 6. easier to re-use > 7. i could come up with more but I hope this will convince you > > Converting your existing queries to Stored Procedures isnt to difficult, but whether its worth it?? I reckon from now on you should use Stored Procedures, that will give you more benefit, unless you are also allowed to recode the SQL statements? > > Taco --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004 --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
