Dynamic Parameter List

Is it possible to have a dynamic number of parameters? Basically I have a
vertical table that will contain a number of records. As records are added
to this table, they will need to be passed to a stored procedure. So say I
have this structure:
SP_Update_Contact @.first_name, @.last_name, @.city, @.state, @.dynamic_param1,
@.dynamic_param2, etc. etc.
Tbl_Dynamic_Params
ID
1 Nationality
2 Net Worth
3 Hair Color
4 Shoe Size
So I want to pass:
SP_Update_Contact @.first_name, @.last_name, @.city, @.state, @.Nationaltiy,
@.Net_Worth, @.HairColor, @.ShoeSize.
Is this possible without using dynamic SQL?"James" <neg@.tory.com> wrote in message
news:Ol%23pUYC5HHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is it possible to have a dynamic number of parameters? Basically I have a
> vertical table that will contain a number of records. As records are
> added to this table, they will need to be passed to a stored procedure.
> So say I have this structure:
> SP_Update_Contact @.first_name, @.last_name, @.city, @.state, @.dynamic_param1,
> @.dynamic_param2, etc. etc.
> Tbl_Dynamic_Params
> ID
> 1 Nationality
> 2 Net Worth
> 3 Hair Color
> 4 Shoe Size
> So I want to pass:
> SP_Update_Contact @.first_name, @.last_name, @.city, @.state, @.Nationaltiy,
> @.Net_Worth, @.HairColor, @.ShoeSize.
> Is this possible without using dynamic SQL?
>
You can have *optional* parameters in a proc, yes. Just specify a default
value for those parameters. For example:
CREATE PROC usp_proc
@.p1 INT = NULL,
@.p2 INT = NULL
AS ...
Both @.p1 and @.p2 are optional and will default to null if they are not
specified. Obviously your parameter *names* must be known at runtime
otherwise you couldn't write any code that used those parameters could you?
Important: Do not use "sp_" as a prefix for your procs. "sp_" is the name
used for system procs and has a special meaning that will cause unwanted
side-effects to your code.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||I don't actually use sp as a prefix, it was merely a visual cue. I
understand optional parameters, but I want the list of parameters to be
dynamic, not just the arguments...that's the crux of the problem. I don't
think there's a really good solution to this.
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:uX5l3nC5HHA.5724@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "James" <neg@.tory.com> wrote in message
> news:Ol%23pUYC5HHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Is it possible to have a dynamic number of parameters? Basically I have
>> a vertical table that will contain a number of records. As records are
>> added to this table, they will need to be passed to a stored procedure.
>> So say I have this structure:
>> SP_Update_Contact @.first_name, @.last_name, @.city, @.state,
>> @.dynamic_param1, @.dynamic_param2, etc. etc.
>> Tbl_Dynamic_Params
>> ID
>> 1 Nationality
>> 2 Net Worth
>> 3 Hair Color
>> 4 Shoe Size
>> So I want to pass:
>> SP_Update_Contact @.first_name, @.last_name, @.city, @.state, @.Nationaltiy,
>> @.Net_Worth, @.HairColor, @.ShoeSize.
>> Is this possible without using dynamic SQL?
> You can have *optional* parameters in a proc, yes. Just specify a default
> value for those parameters. For example:
>
> CREATE PROC usp_proc
> @.p1 INT = NULL,
> @.p2 INT = NULL
> AS ...
> Both @.p1 and @.p2 are optional and will default to null if they are not
> specified. Obviously your parameter *names* must be known at runtime
> otherwise you couldn't write any code that used those parameters could
> you?
> Important: Do not use "sp_" as a prefix for your procs. "sp_" is the name
> used for system procs and has a special meaning that will cause unwanted
> side-effects to your code.
> --
> David Portas, SQL Server MVP
> Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
> Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
> State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
> of any error messages.
> SQL Server Books Online:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
> --
>
>|||"James" <neg@.tory.com> wrote in message
news:eK3xtqC5HHA.5212@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I don't actually use sp as a prefix, it was merely a visual cue. I
>understand optional parameters, but I want the list of parameters to be
>dynamic, not just the arguments...that's the crux of the problem. I don't
>think there's a really good solution to this.
>
I don't understand what you mean when you say you want the "list of
parameters to be dynamic". Parameters have names and types. If you don't
know the names and types in advance then how could you possibly write a proc
that made use of them - even assuming it was possible to pass them as
parameters?
Maybe what you want is an array. SQL Server has a data structure that is
much more powerful than an array: a table! :-)
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||>> ... but I want the list of parameters to be dynamic, not just the
>> arguments...that's the crux of the problem.
The crux of the problem has to do with the poor design scheme you use to
represent various attributes as values. If you have a static set of
properties that you have to manage, treat them as columns rather than values
in a column. The right answer is that you should reconsider the logical
design. Mixing up data with metadata is always a recipe for messy and
complex solutions.
--
Anith|||You're preaching to the choir. This isn't my design. Let me rewind. A
colleague approach me with this problem.
Contacts Table:
ID First_Name Last_Name ... ...
Pretty basic. Now there is additional data that needs to be stored. I.E.
Shoe Size, Hat Size, and various other data. However, not every record will
have all of these fields. Also, fields need to be added on the fly with the
lowest amount of maintenance possible.
Performance is a huge consideration. He has approximately 2 million records
in the Contacts table and say, 10 fields +/-. He believes that performance
will be better if he has a flat table that is a 1-to-1 with this table that
stores the extra columns...as opposed to a more normalized alternative that
they have in place now which CRAWLS.
Should I talk him out of this redesign, encourage it, or suggest an
alternative? If so, that begs the question...what alternative?
"Anith Sen" <anith@.bizdatasolutions.com> wrote in message
news:%23rOPW9C5HHA.4964@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> ... but I want the list of parameters to be dynamic, not just the
>> arguments...that's the crux of the problem.
> The crux of the problem has to do with the poor design scheme you use to
> represent various attributes as values. If you have a static set of
> properties that you have to manage, treat them as columns rather than
> values in a column. The right answer is that you should reconsider the
> logical design. Mixing up data with metadata is always a recipe for messy
> and complex solutions.
> --
> Anith
>|||"James" <neg@.tory.com> wrote in message
news:eLGgUPD5HHA.5316@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> You're preaching to the choir. This isn't my design. Let me rewind. A
> colleague approach me with this problem.
> Contacts Table:
> ID First_Name Last_Name ... ...
> Pretty basic. Now there is additional data that needs to be stored. I.E.
> Shoe Size, Hat Size, and various other data. However, not every record
> will have all of these fields. Also, fields need to be added on the fly
> with the lowest amount of maintenance possible.
> Performance is a huge consideration. He has approximately 2 million
> records in the Contacts table and say, 10 fields +/-. He believes that
> performance will be better if he has a flat table that is a 1-to-1 with
> this table that stores the extra columns...as opposed to a more normalized
> alternative that they have in place now which CRAWLS.
> Should I talk him out of this redesign, encourage it, or suggest an
> alternative? If so, that begs the question...what alternative?
>
Two million rows is not large and should be well within the capabilities of
even an entry level server. If performance is inadequate then start looking
at indexing, query plans, statistics and procedure design.
As for the logical model, a normalized design is the right place to start.
Nothing you have said suggests any need for a change from that.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:elfSovC5HHA.3400@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>.
> Maybe what you want is an array. SQL Server has a data structure that is
> much more powerful than an array: a table! :-)
>.
This is a disturbing statement from someone who purports to
understand a strong typed system. I assume its rationale
is not intellectual. Shall I pull out the sql couch and
start the examination? :-)
www.beyondsql.blogspot.com|||You mean like printf. I seriously doubt it considering the hoops C has to go
through to make it work.
How about name/value pairs passed into one large varchar?
set @.paramerters = 'first_name='+@.first_name+';last_name='+@.last_name
create procedure sp_update_contact @.parameters
as
declare @.parameters varchar(max)
loop through the string looking for the ; delimiter, then split the
name/value pair and put it in a table variable:
declare @.MyArray TABLE (
name varchar(20)
value varchar(20)
)
Then do as you please.
Since the name portion had to corospond to a column in the table, you better
have some decent error checking an support for an error return.
"James" <neg@.tory.com> wrote in message
news:Ol%23pUYC5HHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is it possible to have a dynamic number of parameters? Basically I have a
> vertical table that will contain a number of records. As records are
> added to this table, they will need to be passed to a stored procedure.
> So say I have this structure:
> SP_Update_Contact @.first_name, @.last_name, @.city, @.state, @.dynamic_param1,
> @.dynamic_param2, etc. etc.
> Tbl_Dynamic_Params
> ID
> 1 Nationality
> 2 Net Worth
> 3 Hair Color
> 4 Shoe Size
> So I want to pass:
> SP_Update_Contact @.first_name, @.last_name, @.city, @.state, @.Nationaltiy,
> @.Net_Worth, @.HairColor, @.ShoeSize.
> Is this possible without using dynamic SQL?
>sql