RE: More Ammo Against Dynamic SQL?

From: Mark W. Farnham <>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:49:36 -0500
Message-ID: <>

Toons and Richard gave you some very nice ones.  

To those I would add the ability, in the event that your application includes access over a wide area, to encode (and document of course) your packages, procedures, and functions with short names so that instead of transmitting many Ks of sqlcode, your calls across whatever network you're across are a few characters for the package name, a few characters for the procedure or function name, plus the required inbound parameters and any results that are retrived. You'd be surprised.  


From: [] On Behalf Of Kellyn Pedersen
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:01 PM
To: oracle Freelists
Subject: More Ammo Against Dynamic SQL?  

I am working on a presentation to convince my company against some of the dastardly dynamic SQL that we have in our code. We perform everything from inserts, updates, deletes, selects and CTAS' all with dynamic SQL and it's killing me!

I would love any new reasons NOT to use it, as I have all the standard reasons like, inability to reuse sql in the buffer, parsing issues, bind peeking issues, execution plan instability, etc..

Thanks for the assist! :)

Kellyn Pedersen

Multi-Platform DBA

I-Behavior Inc.  

"Go away before I replace you with a very small and efficient shell script..."  

Received on Mon Nov 23 2009 - 15:49:36 CST

Original text of this message