|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:43 AM
Points: 1,137,
Visits: 670
|
|
Not a whole lot. I think 5% is a very accurate figure for the current implementation. However, if MS changes a few things about the way UDTs and UDAs work in the next version, I think that number could jump quite a bit.
I also predict that in a future version MS will implement a fully object-based data access library that can compete with TSQL from a performance point of view. Note, I have no inside information to back that up, it's just what I think I see based on some of the direction I see all of this going in. If that does turn out to be true, I think we'll see the landscape drastically change as developers really will no longer have a huge incentive to learn T-SQL. But that's at least a few years off.
-- Adam Machanic SQL Server MVP SQLblog.com: THE SQL Server Blog Spot on the Web
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:43 AM
Points: 1,137,
Visits: 670
|
|
The assembly is loaded into the database. The DLL is no longer used -- and can even be deleted.
You are correct, there can be many issues, and it is not an easy task. Not so bad for functions and stored procedures most of the time, but quite interesting for user-defined types...
-- Adam Machanic SQL Server MVP SQLblog.com: THE SQL Server Blog Spot on the Web
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:33 PM
Points: 124,
Visits: 13
|
|
This is the first I've been able to stop and look at this. Is it me, or is this CLR integration a lot like our current extended stored procedure capability?
Steve Miller
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 7:52 PM
Points: 446,
Visits: 355
|
|
Yep that sounds about right to me, except it seems a bit simpler to use. Anyway I'm convinced of its benefits, not something I'd use that often but when it's used it seems like it would be of great use.
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:43 AM
Points: 1,137,
Visits: 670
|
|
Similar, perhaps, with several key differences:
1) Managed code vs. unmanaged code -- means that CLR routines are safer than XPs. 2) XPs are created per server. CLR routines are created per database. 3) XPs are only "procedures". CLR routines can take the form of procedures, functions, types, aggregates, or triggers. 4) In-process ADO.NET context connection for CLR routines vs. "bound" connections for XPs -- means less overhead for CLR routines (no need to create a new connection).
-- Adam Machanic SQL Server MVP SQLblog.com: THE SQL Server Blog Spot on the Web
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:33 PM
Points: 124,
Visits: 13
|
|
Adam, thanks for the succinct summary.
Steve Miller
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:50 PM
Points: 1,
Visits: 8
|
|
I think the article is fine, but it seems to ignore the Visual Studio 2005 tools that can make the process of creating and debugging SQL CLR exectuables far easier.
HTH,
William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant, Microsoft MVP betav.com
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:26 AM
Points: 1,
Visits: 8
|
|
Excellent article!!! I am new to SQL Server and am charged with moving a MS Access application to SQL. I have managed to get all our business rules translated to the point all MS Access is used for is a "front end" consisting only of a database full of forms. Part of our application requires the output of reports in an Excel format. A resonably easy task in VBA. I have been struggling on how to accomplish this in SQL Server 2005. Since I am able to create the customm reports using VB.NET or C# .Net, this article gave me the link I desparately was searching for! My Kudos to the author!
|
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:38 AM
Points: 74,
Visits: 600
|
|
| Best example I have seen on the web. It actually works if you follow the steps.
|
|
|
|