Using LIKE..
in [Server Configuration]
|
Prev: Optimizer on SQL 2005
Next: Restore using MDF and LDF
From: Abba on 4 Feb 2010 21:43 <background story> This stor proc resides in an app which we are running for just 1 client and would be soon decommissioned. They were supposed to go away on last Qrtr but sought an extension till Q1. In last qrtr, the auditors had only 1 complaint and that is about the lines of code. If we do not remediate that in Q1, we may have to pay penalty and with ROI from just 1 client, its a bad bargain for us. </background story> >Would simply removing the new line characters in the code make the auditing >process work better? The tool used by auditors to count, does not take new line characters into account. "Andrew Morton" <akm(a)in-press.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:7t01bmF4hdU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Abba wrote: >> All Iam trying to do is to reduce the lines of code of some stored >> procedures as the huge number is standing in way of our internal >> audit. > > I suggest that changing code to suit the auditing process is the wrong way > to go about it. Would simply removing the new line characters in the code > make the auditing process work better? > > -- > Andrew >
From: Hugo Kornelis on 5 Feb 2010 04:35
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:30:29 +0530, Abba wrote: >> Plamens suggestion will work, but it will probably perform worse than >> the existing code. >Thats not a concern in this case as the table in question just has 2000 rows >and doesn't grow more than 10 rows a year. > >All Iam trying to do is to reduce the lines of code of some stored >procedures as the huge number is standing in way of our internal audit. I'll be blunt about this - Just send an email to the auditors, asking them if they really believe that fewer lines of hard-to-understand, hard-to-read, and (hence) hard-to-maintain code is better than more lines of self-documenting (but also well documented), easy-to-understand and incredibly easy to maintain code. Include some high ranking managers in the cc field. Make sure to include at least the manager that signs their bills (if external) or pay check (if internal). If that's not enoguh, than create a copy of the source, strip out all comments, and submit that for approval. (But do keep the original version as well, as you don't really want to lose the comments). Gosh, how I _HATE_ those auditors. Clarification: this only applies to auditors WHO DON'T THINK. And maybe I should amend that to apply to ALL PEOPLE who don't think. -- Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP My SQL Server blog: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hugo_kornelis |