I worked recently with some IT people who were themselves engaged in the development and enhancement of a high-volume application that accesses DB2 for z/OS data by way of stored procedures (the client side of the application communicates with the target DB2 system via the distributed data facility, also known as DDF). Various actions implemented and plans formulated by this IT team serve to effectively illustrate some important points regarding the nesting of DB2 stored procedures ("nesting," in this context, refers to a situation in which stored procedures call other stored procedures). Through this blog entry, I want to bring these points to light.
Why nest in the first place?
This basically comes down to what you want in terms of the granularity of the functionality provided by your DB2 for z/OS stored procedures. Suppose that you have a stored procedure that performs a variety of data-related actions -- perhaps inserting some rows into one table, updating rows in another table, and generating a result set that will be consumed by the calling process. If these actions are always to be accomplished every time the stored procedure is called, keeping them in the one stored procedure is probably the way to go for optimal performance and for the sake of simplicity (simple is generally good); however, if it is likely that a typical CALL will end up exercising just one of the stored procedure's data processing functions, separating those functions in several different, smaller stored procedures could be advantageous. Of course, such a break-up doesn't necessarily imply nesting -- client applications could just call the individual stored procedures directly. The question then, is this: at what level do you want small-grain (referring to scope of functionality) stored procedures to be grouped so as to provide larger-grain database services? If you want this grouping to be done by client-side application programs, have those programs call the small-grain stored procedures directly. If, on the other hand, you want the grouping of small-grain stored procedures for larger-grain processing to be handled by higher-level "orchestrating" stored procedures, go the nesting route.
In the case of the application I mentioned in the opening paragraph of this entry, the IT team wanted the flexibility provided by small-grain stored procedures, but they didn't want client-side developers to have to do the work of "stringing together" small-grain stored procedures to accomplish more-comprehensive data processing tasks. Given that situation, the decision to implement nested stored procedures is understandable.
When one stored procedure invokes another: the CALL statement
Because the application to which I've referred is quite dynamic with respect to changes in client-required data processing, the IT team in charge of stored procedure design and development went with a maximally flexible implementation: they created a "parent" stored procedure that would invoke nested, "child" stored procedures with calls of this form (here ":hvar" refers to a host variable):
CALL :hvar (:hvar, :hvar, :hvar, :hvar)
That CALL-coding decision, in turn, dictated the use of an external stored procedure for the "parent" routine, versus a native SQL procedure. Why? Because a CALL in the body of a native SQL procedure must be of the form CALL procedure-name. In other words, a nested stored procedure invoked by a native SQL procedure must be explicitly named (i.e., "hard-coded") in the CALL statement issued by the native SQL procedure.
COBOL was chosen by the IT team as the coding language for the "parent" stored procedure. It was further decided that the nested stored procedures would be native SQL procedures.
"Hey, where's my zIIP offload?"
When the stored procedure set-up went live, the supporting IT folks were surprised to see that the native SQL procedures were getting very little in the way of zIIP engine offload. Aren't native SQL procedures supposed to be majorly zIIP-eligible when they are called by DRDA requesters (i.e., through DDF)? Yes, but that is only true when a native SQL procedure is directly called by a DRDA requester (as I pointed out in an entry I posted to this blog a few months ago). See, a native SQL procedure always runs under the task of its caller. When the caller is a DRDA requester, that z/OS task is an enclave SRB in the DB2 DDF address space, and that makes the called native SQL procedure zIIP-eligible (to the tune of 55-60%). If a native SQL procedure is called by an external DB2 stored procedure, the native SQL procedure will execute under the task of the external stored procedure -- a TCB in a stored procedure address space -- and so will get little, if anything, in the way of zIIP offload.
Making a result set generated by a nested stored procedure available to a program that is more than "one level up" from the nested procedure
The aforementioned lack of zIIP offload seen for the nested native SQL procedures was exacerbated by the mechanism used to make result set rows generated by a cursor declared and opened in a nested stored procedure available to a "top-level" calling program (i.e., to a client-side program that initiated a chain of nested stored procedure calls): the result set rows were inserted by the nested stored procedure into a temporary table, and the top-level calling program would then retrieve the rows from that temporary table. Not an uncommon approach, but also not great from a performance perspective, and more complex than you'd like. DB2 10 for z/OS gave us a much better way of getting this job done: ditch the temporary table, and have the nested stored procedure declare its cursor WITH RETURN TO CLIENT (versus WITH RETURN TO CALLER, the formerly only valid specification by which a cursor's result set can be directly fetched only by the direct caller of the result-set-generating stored procedure). When a cursor in a stored procedure is declared WITH RETURN TO CLIENT, the result set rows can be directly fetched by the top-level calling program, no matter how far down the result-set-generating stored procedure is in a chain of nested calls.
Rethinking things: there's more than one kind of CALL
Even WITH RETURN TO CLIENT cursors might not have delivered the performance that was desired for the stored procedures of which I've been writing, particularly in light of the fact that, as mentioned, the nested, native SQL procedures were getting very little zIIP engine offload. Of course, the parent stored procedure could have been changed to a native SQL procedure from an external stored procedure, so as to maximize zIIP offload (and minimize general-purpose CPU consumption), but that would have required going with CALL procedure-name invocation of the nested stored procedures, and the IT team really wanted to stay with the CALL :hvar approach. Ultimately, a decision was made to go with an option made possible by the fact that the parent stored procedure was written in COBOL: the nested routines would be changed from native SQL procedures to COBOL subroutines, and they would be invoked as such from the parent stored procedure. That makes sense in this case: if zIIP offload isn't your ticket to minimizing consumption of general-purpose engine capacity, get CPU efficiency by reducing path length -- a COBOL subroutine called by a COBOL stored procedure program should be more CPU-efficient than an equivalent-function nested stored procedure called by that same COBOL stored procedure program (I say "should" because I haven't yet seen the results of the IT team's change to the COBOL subroutine approach, but I expect efficiency gains).
You have plenty of options when you're looking to implement stored procedure-based DB2 database services -- external and native, nested and non-nested, WITH RETURN TO CALLER and WITH RETURN TO CLIENT cursors. There's not a one-size-fits all "right way" that will always be the best way. Consider the particulars of your situation, and make the choices that deliver the flexibility, performance, and functionality that YOU want.
What to client do, when it comes time to update/modify one of the fine grain functions of stored procedures? The issue is around having is is necessary DROP/CREATE a child stored procedure/function. Any advice?ReplyDelete
Check my blog entry on altering native SQL procedures (http://robertsdb2blog.blogspot.com/2015/03/db2-for-zos-non-disruptively-altering.html). Information in that entry may provide answers to your questions.Delete