Home/ Questions/Q 8216255
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-07T12:03:54+00:00

I have a stored procedure that updates two tables. The first table is always

  • 0

I have a stored procedure that updates two tables. The first table is always the same table, but the second table changes depending on a parameter that is passed in. Is it more efficient to write it all into one big procudure, as such

CREATE PROCEDURE MyBigProc
    @id int
    @param int,
    @value1 int,
    @value2 int
AS
BEGIN
    SET NOCOUNT ON;

    -- First table to update
    UPDATE MyTable SET field1 = @value1 WHERE id = @id

    -- Then choose which table to update based on @param
    IF @param = 1
       UPDATE MySecondTable SET field2 = @value2 WHERE id = @id

    IF @param = 2
       UPDATE MyThirdTable SET field2 = @value2 WHERE id = @id
END

Or should I write a separate procedure for each table and then call EXEC the procedure from the main procedure.

I suppose the latter is more flexible, say if I wanted to update a subtable but no the main table?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    I suppose the latter is more flexible, say if I wanted to update a
    subtable but no the main table?

    Exactly, you have a good reason to split the work on 2 separate procs. If it makes sense for you for everything else, I don’t see why not follow that approach.

    One possible reason not to do it, would be if you need both updates to succeed or fail at the same time. Under a scenario like this, I would leave everything in one proc and enclose everything in one transaction.

    • 0