Francis Harvey
HARVEYF1 at WESTAT.com
Wed Jun 30 08:55:13 CDT 2004
Arthur, No time problem. I just won't argue with someone who doesn't have the underlying background. You will either take the time to become properly informed (not agreeing, just informed) or not. I am not going to walk you from an example through every nuance of the problem. I don't have that kind of patience. Show me in some way that you have at least made an attempt to research one of the problems, and I'll spend as much time as is needed. Seeing you are willing to characterize dynamic SQL without doing the basic research I suggested, I will characterize you as too lazy to be offering anyone a valid opinion about the subject. Seems about as fair. 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 Arthur Fuller > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:19 PM > To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com > Subject: RE: [dba-SQLServer] Difference between views and queries > > > OK, we'll let you off the hook due to insufficient time. Fine. Point > remains unproven, however. > > I still pose the challenge: > > Give me a situation in which a dynamic query cannot be ported to 1+ > stored procs. > > I don't think you can do it. And in addition, I don't think it would > take me a vast amount of time to come up with a case statement and the > requisite sprocs. > > I think dynamic SQL is for the lazy. So there, I said it. > Prove me wrong > with an example that cannot be coded in 1+ sprocs. <snip>