I’m super excited about this month’s T-SQL Tuesday, for a couple reasons. First of all, this month’s T-SQL Tuesday is hosted by Brad Schulz. Brad is a guy that I got to interview a couple years ago. Second, is that the topic is Sprox ‘n’ Funx (Stored Procedures and Functions). Which I like because the topic is nice and technical.
I started out thinking that I could treat the question “Are stored procedures a good thing?” But that issue is a contentious one and it would take a book to treat that issue properly (So maybe later)
Today, I’m giving some attention to some interesting numbers related to stored procedures (the format is taken from Harper’s Index a popular feature in Harper’s magazine)
Stored Procedures By The Numbers
250: The largest size in megabytes allowed for the source text of a stored procedure.
2,100: The largest number of parameters allowed for a stored procedure.
32: The maximum number of nested levels allowed for stored procedures.
1,598: The number of mentions in sys.messages that contain the word procedure.
858: The number of mentions for function.
389,000: The number of Google results for should use stored procedures.
29,500: The number of Google results reported for should not used stored procedures.
1 in 866: The odds that a random word taken from MichaelJSwart.com is procedure.
1 in 879: The odds that a random word taken from the 2011 State of the Union address is budget.
18: The number of participating blogs in Brad Schulz’ T-SQL Tuesday on the subject of stored procedures and functions.
1875: Earliest year I could find a published mention for the word sproc*
* ~ Lives of the Irish Saints (1875) mentions a St. Sproc daughter of Colum. I am not making that up!
Michael, this is awesome!
I can’t stop laughing… my family is wondering what all the guffawing is about.
I want to see more “By The Numbers” posts!
Bravo!! Thanks!!!
–Brad
Comment by Brad Schulz — November 7, 2011 @ 10:21 pm
Love it, great post!
Comment by Nick Haslam — November 8, 2011 @ 2:42 am
Thanks Nick,
Thanks Brad, I don’t know about more numbers posts. (Unlike SQL) sequels are always a bit disappointing don’t you think?
Comment by Michael J. Swart — November 8, 2011 @ 8:32 am
Cool! When I was at Allure, we did a monthly (beauty-related) by the numbers too. Even when I found the subject itself uninteresting, choosing which stats to include was a lot of fun.
Comment by Claire — November 8, 2011 @ 10:07 am
Hey Claire, Picking the stats that I found interesting was the most fun. And it’s even more fun when you don’t limit yourself to existing stats that are on hand, but anything that can be found out (I love the the information age)
Comment by Michael J. Swart — November 13, 2011 @ 4:29 pm