Craig S. Mullins

Return to Home Page

March 2009

 

 

 

                                         



The DBA Corner
by Craig S. Mullins
 

Dynamic SQL On The Rise

 

Have you noticed that dynamic SQL is more popular today than ever before?

There are a number of factors contributing to the success of dynamic SQL. Commercial off the shelf applications, like SAP, Siebel and Peoplesoft, utilize dynamic SQL exclusively. In many cases, too, dynamic SQL is the default choice for in-house application development. Development of Java applications using an IDE that interacts with JDBC can be simpler for programmers than building static applications from scratch. And applications that use JDBC and ODBC will result in dynamic SQL. Furthermore, dynamic SQL is prevalent in most web-based development projects.

This trend to embrace dynamic SQL is in stark contrast to the mindset of a decade or so ago when the prevailing rule was to avoid dynamic SQL at all costs, especially on the mainframe. Of course, back then, dynamic SQL in a DB2 environment meant COBOL programs with embedded dynamic SQL, which was not simple to code.

So DBA groups created rules about avoiding dynamic SQL, and usually for good reason. Dynamic SQL was unpredictable because it was built “on the fly” in the program, and it was more difficult to monitor and tune because dynamic SQL is optimized at runtime, instead of beforehand during the bind process.

Even today, the performance of dynamic SQL still is a widely debated topic. Some shops still try to avoid it, while many more place strict controls on its use. But most of the past concerns can be relegated to the dustbin of history. In this day and age, a hard and fast rule of “no dynamic SQL” is unwarranted. Significant performance improvements coupled with new options have contributed to the minimization of differences between static and dynamic SQL over time. Today, there are various options at your disposal to make static act more like dynamic, as well as to make dynamic act more like static.

Turning things upside down, dynamic SQL can even offer advantages over static SQL when it is used appropriately. With dynamic SQL, access paths are not pre-determined at BIND-time so the DBMS can use the most up-to-date statistics to build more optimal query execution plans. And for queries with predicates written on columns having non-uniformly distributed data, the host variable values can be factored into the access path. This can result in performance improvements over static SQL which typically has no knowledge of the host variable values.

Dynamic statement caching (DSC) removes yet another impediment to dynamic SQL performance. With DSC, DB2 for z/OS saves prepared dynamic statements in a cache. After a dynamic SQL statement has been prepared and saved in the cache, subsequent prepare requests for that same SQL statement can avoid the costly preparation process by reusing the statement from the cache.

Of course, there are disadvantages to dynamic SQL, too. Whenever dynamic SQL statements are prepared and not cached, total statement execution time increases. This is so because the time to prepare the dynamic statement must be added to the overall execution time. And, keep in mind, in order for the dynamic prepare to be reused, the dynamic SQL statement has to be exactly the same as the one that caused the prepared statement to be cached -- even down to the same number of spaces in the text of the statement.

From the perspective of performance monitoring and tuning, dynamic SQL still can be more difficult to manage. For static SQL, the statement text is available in the system catalog and the access path information is available in the associated plan tables after binding with the EXPLAIN(YES). There is no PLAN_TABLE that contains the access paths for dynamic SQL, nor is the SQL available in the system catalog. For this reason some DBAs view dynamic SQL as a performance black hole. Of course, there are tools that allow you to shine a light into this darkness by capturing dynamic statements and explaining them.

Error detection can also be problematic because dynamic SQL is only compiled at runtime, so errors in the SQL statement may not be detected until it is run. And, of course, authorization and security can be more burdensome for dynamic SQL applications. For example, using dynamic SQL puts more responsibility on programmers to avoid security exposures, such as SQL injection attacks.

But the bottom line is that dynamic SQL is a viable option for application development in the 21st century. It is wise to avoid stringent rules that prohibit its use in your shop.

 

 

 

 

 

From Database Trends and Applications, March 2009.

2009 Craig S. Mullins,  All rights reserved.

Home.