The Full Potential of SQL 2000

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » SQLServerCentral.com » Editorials » The Full Potential of SQL 2000

37 posts, Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 »»»

The Full Potential of SQL 2000

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

Tony Davis

Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:01 PM

Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:31 AM
Points: 511, Visits: 945

Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Full Potential of SQL 2000

Post #610011

RBarryYoung

Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:30 PM

SSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, May 04, 2013 11:13 AM
Points: 9,855, Visits: 9,374

Tony:

I see some UDF's in the Matrix workbench: They're not going to work on SQL Server 7.0. :)

-- RBarryYoung, (302)375-0451 blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. "Performance is our middle name."

Post #610021

Jeff Moden

Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 10:15 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:24 PM
Points: 32,913, Visits: 26,806

Heh... you know I'd show up with the idea that it "can all be done in T-SQL". Now, if we can just get Microsoft to stop deprecating stuff! :P

--Jeff Moden

"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/

For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/

Post #610068

Salvador S. Scardua

Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:05 AM

SSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:01 AM
Points: 37, Visits: 79

Hello for All,

About Potencial of the Versions of SQL Server, in my company we migrated SQL Server 2000 for 2005, but all databases run in 8.0 compatibility mode.

I study Report Service 2008 and until now, any new feature did not maked a difference, and I´m think in implement the Report Service 2005.

Thanks,

Brazil

Post #610885

sausage.dog

Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 3:20 PM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 10:27 PM
Points: 5, Visits: 36

Why build using managed languages? Why build using object oriented languages? Why build using high level languages? Let's all go back to assembler.

The editorial is inane. Why would you want to do things the hard way when you've been given a productivity tool to do things simpler, faster. Why would you want to build anything on a platform at its end of life?

I get that the article is rhetorical, but most people don't jump on new features because they're new. They do it because it provides a simple framework to be more productive, more agile, cheaper to build, and easier to maintain. Just imagine what would happen to your proprietary SQL Server 7.0 framework the moment a body walks out the door.

Post #610961

steve dassin

Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 3:21 PM

SSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 6:02 PM
Points: 174, Visits: 2,075

Hello Steve,

I agree with you that while excitment sells it doesn't necessary mean progress. And not everyone wants to blow the same whistle and reach for the newest brass ring. But when it comes to things like matrix work benches there seems a need for a reality check too. What you are encouraging is to go where there is absolutely no intent. Yeah, you can play around. You can also try to manage an enterprises data with fortran. So it's not surprising that some spacecadets think nothing of using the server for factor analysis. If this is for 'real' and for 'real' data, then here's the check mate - that's crazy. Professionals know the tools for their trade, or should. You don't play chess with checkers. If you want to deal with matrices or multivariate analysis you go with the software where that's the intent. You check out the IMSL library, SAS, SPSS or BMDP. They've been around a hell of a lot longer than sql server and their stuff is burned in. You don't go cobbling together select and backdoor update statements. MS users should learn more about broads, as in horizons.

best,
steve dassin
www.beyondsql.blogspot.com
P.S. If you want real arrays in real data management you need look no further than the combination of Dataphor/Sql Server.

Post #610962

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 10:35 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 12:01 PM
Points: 31,436, Visits: 13,750

SQL 2000 is a great, stable platform and it's served me well in many situations. I've had all kinds of businesses run well on it, including this one. We upgraded to 2005, but we didn't need to and SQL 2000 would likely run this site for a long time to come.

That being said, I'm not sure I'd continue to develop on this platform since support (mainstream) is essentially done and you never know when you'll run into an issue you need help on. People continue to find bugs all the time with new development.

SQL 2005 and 2008 are great evolutions of the product and I'd recommend them to anyone. However I'm not sure I'd upgrade existing applications without a good reason. Continuing development might be a reason to do so.

And thanks for the editorial, Tony. Nice to have a break.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #611030

Rudy Panigas

Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 7:08 AM

Old Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:52 PM
Points: 306, Visits: 1,016

I like your question " Have I even got close to exploiting the full potential of SQL Server 2000?" This could also be asked of SQL 2005. With SQL Server or any other software, you will never see its full potential as long as new version get pumped out every 2-3 years. It's all about business and making money not about making SQL Server better...until the next version.

I really enjoy working with SQL Server as most of you, I only wish that instead of making new versions, why not just continues and add to existing foundation? Add features, functions, processes. All these could be additional dollars and you would only pay for the upgrades needed.

Just my cents worth.

Rudy

Post #611309

Jeff Moden

Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 8:38 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:24 PM
Points: 32,913, Visits: 26,806

That's exactly what SQL Server 2008 is... the ultimate service pack for 2005 ;)

--Jeff Moden

Post #611784

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 8:48 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 12:01 PM
Points: 31,436, Visits: 13,750

It's always a balance. We complain and ask for things to be fixed, stabilized, sped up, and there are changes made in those areas, but it's a business and there is a push to implement new features to create sales.

I'm with you for the most part. I wish we'd get more stable every 2 years and then every 4 years a new version, but it looks like the other way. A new version every 30 months or so.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #611788

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

37 posts, Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 »»»

Permissions