If at all possible, don't do this.
That's the answer—it's an anti-pattern. If the client knows the table it wants data from, then SELECT FROM ThatTable
. If a database is designed in a way that this is required, it seems to be designed sub-optimally. If a data access layer needs to know whether a value exists in a table, it is easy to compose SQL in that code, and pushing this code into the database is not good.
To me this seems like installing a device inside an elevator where one can type in the number of the desired floor. After the Go button is pressed, it moves a mechanical hand over to the correct button for the desired floor and presses it. This introduces many potential issues.
Please note: there is no intention of mockery, here. My silly elevator example was *the very best device I could imagine* for succinctly pointing out issues with this technique. It adds a useless layer of indirection, moving table name choice from a caller space (using a robust and well-understood DSL, SQL) into a hybrid using obscure/bizarre server-side SQL code.
Such responsibility-splitting through movement of query construction logic into dynamic SQL makes the code harder to understand. It violates a standard and reliable convention (how a SQL query chooses what to select) in the name of custom code fraught with potential for error.
Here are detailed points on some of the potential problems with this approach:
Dynamic SQL offers the possibility of SQL injection that is hard to recognize in the front end code or the back end code alone (one must inspect them together to see this).
Stored procedures and functions can access resources that the SP/function owner has rights to but the caller doesn't. As far as I understand, without special care, then by default when you use code that produces dynamic SQL and runs it, the database executes the dynamic SQL under the rights of the caller. This means you either won't be able to use privileged objects at all, or you have to open them up to all clients, increasing the surface area of potential attack to privileged data. Setting the SP/function at creation time to always run as a particular user (in SQL Server, EXECUTE AS
) may solve that problem, but makes things more complicated. This exacerbates the risk of SQL injection mentioned in the previous point, by making the dynamic SQL a very enticing attack vector.
When a developer must understand what the application code is doing in order to modify it or fix a bug, he'll find it very difficult to get the exact SQL query being executed. SQL profiler can be used, but this takes special privileges and can have negative performance effects on production systems. The executed query can be logged by the SP but this increases complexity for questionable benefit (requiring accommodating new tables, purging old data, etc.) and is quite non-obvious. In fact, some applications are architected such that the developer does not have database credentials, so it becomes almost impossible for him to actually see the query being submitted.
When an error occurs, such as when you try to select a table that doesn't exist, you'll get a message along the lines of "invalid object name" from the database. That will happen exactly the same whether you're composing the SQL in the back end or the database, but the difference is, some poor developer who's trying to troubleshoot the system has to spelunk one level deeper into yet another cave below the one where the problem exists, to dig into the wonder-procedure that Does It All to try to figure out what the problem is. Logs won't show "Error in GetWidget", it will show "Error in OneProcedureToRuleThemAllRunner". This abstraction will generally make a system worse.
An example in pseudo-C# of switching table names based on a parameter:
string sql = $"SELECT * FROM {EscapeSqlIdentifier(tableName)};"
results = connection.Execute(sql);
While this does not eliminate every possible issue imaginable, the flaws I outlined with the other technique are absent from this example.