May 19, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Who Built This Thing?
May 20, 2008 at 1:39 am
I'm sure a few minutes of my time could come up with several suggestions for how to make SQL Server more user-friendly (at least for me), but I'll never spend those minutes, because I don't care about those deficiencies. SQL Server works. It does what I expect of it, reliably and consistently, and that's all that really matters to me. And for that reason, I believe SQL Server to be the single highest quality product to which Microsoft have ever put their name.
I'm not going to worry about detail when the fundamentals are (IMHO) right.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
May 20, 2008 at 2:42 am
"There are definitely times that I think the people that build the system stored procedures and other code we can see don't really work with SQL Server. It seems that best practices aren't followed and things aren't even well coded."
Agree with this comment but please realize that many of the system stored procedures are identical to those from in the 1993 Sybase version and probably are from earlier versions. A lot has changed in the area of RDBMSs in the last 15 years.
SQL = Scarcely Qualifies as a Language
May 20, 2008 at 4:12 am
I agree with Steve, especially when he talks about the MS Team and said they are like us. They too are humans and they are into teams that work with a passion to build a world class product. In my personal use of MS products, I have found that whatever you need to do, they have already thought about it and included it somehow or given us a means to do it. When I code, I always have the user of my product in mind and IMHO MS teams do too. MS, Keep up the good work.:)
Edward.
May 20, 2008 at 6:12 am
I'll rate this as one of your better posts. Sharing an epiphany is worth doing. How about going back and looking at other "features" to see if you see hidden value in some of them?
Most businesses at the mercy of sales/marketing. Not all bad, but could use a little improvement too. It takes a lot of work to get a seat at that table in order to make a difference, and the process of getting there doesn't have much to do with coding ability - so not many of us try.
May 20, 2008 at 7:45 am
I am feeling very charitable toward SQL Server right now. It's a great product!
Yesterday, I had to assist another developer in writing queries for MS Access, interpreting its useless error messages, figuring out that "statement must be updateable query" meant that it didn't allow any subqueries in an update statement, and, to top it all off, practicing the black magic of placing enough parentheses in the FROM clause so it wouldn't scream syntax error.
When you think about how bad it could be... SQL Server is a great product!
May 20, 2008 at 9:27 am
The hard part about seeing value in features is having a place where they can be used. This is where I think the developers and designers of SQL Server need to come up with, and publish, lots of use cases and examples of where things can be used.
Not that you have to have 14 cases to build the feature, but the more ideas you can publish, or that others can share, the more people will see value (or see them as not needed if you publish failures).
May 20, 2008 at 10:02 am
Stephanie Giovannini (5/20/2008)
I am feeling very charitable toward SQL Server right now. It's a great product!Yesterday, I had to assist another developer in writing queries for MS Access, interpreting its useless error messages, figuring out that "statement must be updateable query" meant that it didn't allow any subqueries in an update statement, and, to top it all off, practicing the black magic of placing enough parentheses in the FROM clause so it wouldn't scream syntax error.
When you think about how bad it could be... SQL Server is a great product!
If you're down on MS Access, you should try a REAL "winner".... Say - Lotus Approach:) You'll be begging for the computing power, and ease of use of MSAccess in, oh - 2 hours (including the installation time)....
But I agree - I think SQL Server is very well put together all in all. Sure, there are some rather "interesting" choices that make us all jump through hoops, but that's what we have to do to earn our keep on a daily basis...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
May 20, 2008 at 10:21 am
Hey Steve, I didn't know you knew Jesus.
Praise be to our Lord and Savior!
God bless you brother! 😉
May 20, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I concur that overall SQL Server is an excellent tool and one that is a large part of how I make my living, and I am glad to know passionate people are working hard to improve it.
It would still be nice to see more of the normal best practices followed within SQL Server itself though.
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog: http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
May 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm
When things like OPENQUERY against an LDAP store are available in stored procedures you know that it has gone a long ways from create a table read a record.
What appears to have happened is that the platform has been expanded over time to become another solution for other problems. This adds complexity and challenges, but it sure does somee very nice things.
Think of 38 cooks all stirring the same pot.
Have a great day.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
May 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I've only used two versions of SQL Server (2000 and 2005), but it does seem to keep getting better. And as I keep learning more, I find it easier and easier to make it do more, faster, and more accurately.
All in all, I think it's quite a good product.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
May 21, 2008 at 10:31 am
SQL Server is improving day version by version and it is one of the best peroduct of MS. Kudos to them........:)
March 11, 2013 at 5:43 am
I've had a go at producing systems with mapping as well and I must admit done well they are incredibly valuable. They are also really quite difficult to get right.
We get used to constantly working with records that don't always have a real world equivalent - most financial transactions for instance.
For georgraphical features though to correctly identify a record you actually need to see a map of its location and for instance see if it has the same boundary as something else.
Utiliites / land parcels / road and rail.
In this respect the geographical feature / definition is often the ultimate identity of certain geographic records and so if you don't hold its geographical location it its like holding a record without a primary key - ultimately inaccurate.
March 12, 2013 at 2:33 am
We hired an external consultant to look at our data tier. He genuinely knew his stuff and made some good suggestions surrounding best practise. But the more he found out about our constraints and our business the more he came to the conclusion that what we had kind of made sense:w00t:
With SQL Server it's a huge product. You can have a career specialism that means that you never touch large parts of it. In some cases I have seen people use a feature/facility with little understanding for what it was actually supposed to be used for (replication filters being a prime example). They would almost certainly be frustrated by their results though ultimately the results were down to inappropriate use.
It's like watching someone use mole grips to tighten a plumbing compression joint. Might work, will be hard to undo it, probably cause leaks!
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply