Ed

Does a Stored Proc not require passage of a correct set of parameters?

If so, an Update Stored Proc for a 200-field table will require a parameter set reflecting those 200 fields that may have changed, will it not?

If the user has chosen to alter only one field, an integer field, what will be passed to the SP?

If the answer is "all fields" then I reject the assertion that this is always somehow "better"- especially if the table contains lots of fields/memos and images. A RV (or SPT) will *almost always* do a better job in such a case.

If the answer is "only the one field", then how much code is required at the client to manage that? Not just "how many lines of code must be written" but "how many lines must be *executed*" since we are so interested in performance.

Then what about the SP? How much code is needed to manage a different set of parameters if we are not sending all every time? I need "proof" that a heavy-code SP to manage a 200-field table and which *must* inflict some stress on the server if it is being belted repeatedly, even if the SP is "compiled and optimised", is better than a RV that figures out what has changed *at the client (or middle tier) end* and and sends what may be a very simple Update-SQL that can be parsed in short order and executed.

Reviewing the SQL Server 7 docs, I can see the assurances that SP are better (they must be- the online docs say "all well-designed apps use Stored Procedures" !!) but apart from one item about updating images that I do not think applied with VFP, I see little to make me want to do everything with SP, especially since medical apps can use huge rows with massive amounts of data. The elegance and cross-platform ease of RVs is a winner. Of course, not every development tool allows RVs which may make SPs a "better" choice. Is "Hobson's choice" an international phrase?

Well, there seems to be a fashion to depart threads theatrically, so here is my rendition: I do understand the technical argument for SP, same as I understand the argument that a Macintosh is technically better than a PC, but I do not accept that I must immediately alter my preference or be criticised/portrayed as a luddite.

Regards

JR