[dba-SQLServer] Difference between views and queries

Francisco,

I would like to consider the opinion of someone who shares my namesake
as seriously as possible, but in this case, I believe you suffer from
Arthur's problem of a lack of experience with the very specific
problems I cited. It is fine to talk about not using dynamic SQL
in general when using SQL Server, but just as with normalization,
there are exceptions and no one should be stating it as an absolute
rule or bad practice until they have reviewed the problems I
mentioned. Again, I will state, for those particular problems,
dynamic SQL is often the superior solution.

Also, the "scaling" issue is teetering awfully close to using FUD.
You can always use any programming method incorrectly, but
correctly written dynamic SQL does not suffer from the horrible
efficiency loss that not having a cached query plan would seem to
imply. Similarly, the "time spent" argument is bad logic. I don't
spend less time on my dynamic SQL solutions, I spend more time
because the problems are difficult. Adding more time for a static SQL
solution will not result in a better design or even a working design
in some cases.

I don't think you, Arthur or I are in disagreement over security, I
just didn't like the oversimplified way security was described, so I
chose to emphasize a particular point. I think this is an important
part that should be highlighted.

Francis R Harvey III
WB 303, (301)294-3952
harveyf1 at westat.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com 
> [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf 
> Of Francisco H Tapia
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 12:42 PM
> To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com
> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Difference between views and queries
> 
> 
> Francis,
>    I respectfully agree w/ Arthur on this.  Dynamic SQL as a rule, is 
> bad design.  Many times over you will find that there are comparable 
> solutions that often meet the demand much better, and "scale" much 
> better than that of dynamic sql.  There is no "ONE" right way 
> of doing 
> things, that is the nature of this business.  However 
> justifying dynamic 
> sql because of some time spent on design is imnsho incorrect. 
>  You will 
> often find more times that enabling users/roles via Views/Sprocs and 
> Functions to be far superior solutions than to open wide dynamic sql.
> 
> re: security.
> Of course if you deny permissions on any object the take 
> precedence over 
> allows, this is the nature of security.  That is why you must be 
> explicitly "SURE" when making DENY requests on any object.  
> NOT giving 
> rights to an object does not equeal REJECT.
> 
> If I do not give a user rights to a view, under Role1, but 
> then give him 
> rights to that object via Role2.  There will be 0 issues w/ 
> accessability.  However If by poor planning I had a "REJECT" 
> rights in 
> Role1, then I'd have the issues you are stating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Harvey wrote On 6/25/2004 2:24 PM:
> 
> >Arthur,
> >
> >Do some research on the basic solutions for SQL that has to 
> adjust for
> >varying databases, conditions (dynamic search), or servers (different
> >SQL dialects). Some designs also call for encapsulating 
> business logic
> >outside of the data tier. In these situations, dynamic SQL is often
> >the only logical choice. I have only had to deal with dynamic search
> >myself, but this is enough to convince me of its usefulness.
> >
> >Describing permissions solely as additive in nature is 
> incorrect. This
> >is the point I was making.
> >
> >Francis R Harvey III
> >WB 303, (301)294-3952
> >harveyf1 at westat.com
<snip>