dynamic SQL may be hard for your impact analysis tool to deal with - I
have also seen it make life harder from the code configuration
management point of view. Colin.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic ESQL
Date: 03/09/97 12:48
Interesting question. Some years back when we wrote a bunch of stuffQuote:> Subject: Static vs. Dynamic ESQL
> As someone who knows very little about the relative benefits of
> using static versus dynamic ESQL statements under Ingres, is there
> anyone out there who can shed some light on the tradeoffs?
> The reason I ask is the project I'm working on has a huge amount
> of static ESQL ... my projectlet is new stuff and there's a strong
> appeal to using dynamic statements for pure flexibility. Do I
> lose anything by doing so? Eg. performance, etc.
using dynamic ESQL, we got much wagging of fingers and dire warnings
about how slow dynamic SQL was. We didn't have a choice, so I pretty
much ignored them. Now, I sort of wonder what the fuss was all about.
Certainly you give up the ability to use REPEATED, which is a BIG win
when used in the right places. And, you have an extra server round-trip
when you PREPARE a statement to fill in all the SQLDA poop. But I don't
see that performance should be direly, drastically worse than
static SQL. Yes, there will be some impact.
You might look at the OpenAPI too if you're doing something that
needs a generic interface. If it had existed 6 years ago I would
have used it instead of dynamic SQL.
It's been a while since I did anything serious (new) with embedded SQL,
so newer/more fact-based responses are welcome.
Karl Schendel Phone: (412) 963-8844
Telesis Computer Corp Fax: (412) 963-1373