One of my co-workers named a stored procedure in our SQL Server 2008 R2 database
sp_something. When I saw this, I immediately thought: "That is WRONG!" and started searching my bookmarks for this online article that explains why it is wrong, so I could provide my co-worker with an explanation.
In the article (by Brian Moran) it is explained that giving the stored procedure an sp_ prefix makes SQL Server look at the master database for a compiled plan. Because the
sp_sproc doesn't reside there, SQL Server will recompile the procedure (and needs an exclusive compile lock for that, causing performance problems).
The following example is given in the article to show the difference between two procedures:
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.Select1 AS SELECT 1;
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.sp_Select1 AS SELECT 1;
You run this, then open the Profiler (add the Stored Procedures ->
SP:CacheMiss event) and run the stored procedures again. You're supposed to see a difference between the two stored procedures: the
sp_Select1 stored procedure will generate one more
SP:CacheMiss event than the
Select1 stored procedure (the article references SQL Server 7.0 and SQL Server 2000.)
When I run the example in my SQL Server 2008 R2 environment, I get the same amount of
SP:CacheMiss events for both procedures (both in tempdb and in another test database).
So I am wondering:
- Can I have done something wrong in my execution of the example?
Is the 'do not name a user
sproc sp_something' adagium still valid in newer versions of SQL Server?
- If so, is there a good example that shows its validity in SQL Server 2008 R2?
Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this!
I found Creating Stored Procedures (Database Engine) on msdn for SQL Server 2008 R2, which answers my second question:
We recommend that you do not create any stored procedures using sp_ as a prefix. SQL Server uses the sp_ prefix to designate system stored procedures. The name you choose may conflict with some future system procedure. [...]
Nothing is mentioned there about performance problems caused by using the
sp_ prefix though. I'd love to know if that's still the case or if they fixed it after SQL Server 2000.