Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


The Full Potential of SQL 2000


The Full Potential of SQL 2000

Author
Message
Rudy Panigas
Rudy Panigas
SSC-Addicted
SSC-Addicted (440 reputation)SSC-Addicted (440 reputation)SSC-Addicted (440 reputation)SSC-Addicted (440 reputation)SSC-Addicted (440 reputation)SSC-Addicted (440 reputation)SSC-Addicted (440 reputation)SSC-Addicted (440 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 440 Visits: 1302
Either way, it's still a very good product. I've used Sybase and now forced to learn Oracle, when you see/use them you will appropriate the SQL server even more. Just hope that Microsoft will continue to listen to the SQL communities and find a way to still make money and keep us all happy.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Rudy



Jeff Moden
Jeff Moden
SSC-Forever
SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 44940 Visits: 39859
I know lot's of good folks that like it, but I don't care for Oracle much, either. Many will disagree with me, but I find it too limiting.

--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.
Although they tell us that they want it real bad, our primary goal is to ensure that we dont actually give it to them that way.
Although change is inevitable, change for the better is usually not.
Just because you can do something in PowerShell, doesnt mean you should. Wink

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Forum FAQs
Phil Factor
Phil Factor
Right there with Babe
Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 739 Visits: 2937
I'm not sure if I buy the idea that it is becoming simpler and simpler to write applications because the tools we use are getting better and better. It is this belief that keeps driving us on to upgrade to the latest bleeding edge of Microsoft product whatever the inconvenience and cost. It may be a good idea, but we need to make a conscious decision.

Over the past twenty years, the lead-time for new applications has been getting longer and longer, they are getting more and more expensive, and the failure rate has remained constant. There have been some huge breakthroughs, certainly, and the expectations, and demands for quality and compliance have increased enormously, but basically, the increase in the complexity of the software tools we use has not been mirrored in more rapid or successful application development. There has always been a huge gap between marketing and reality in the IT industry.


Best wishes,

Phil Factor
Simple Talk
Jeff Moden
Jeff Moden
SSC-Forever
SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 44940 Visits: 39859
Phil Factor (12/14/2008)
I'm not sure if I buy the idea that it is becoming simpler and simpler to write applications because the tools we use are getting better and better. It is this belief that keeps driving us on to upgrade to the latest bleeding edge of Microsoft product whatever the inconvenience and cost. It may be a good idea, but we need to make a conscious decision.

Over the past twenty years, the lead-time for new applications has been getting longer and longer, they are getting more and more expensive, and the failure rate has remained constant. There have been some huge breakthroughs, certainly, and the expectations, and demands for quality and compliance have increased enormously, but basically, the increase in the complexity of the software tools we use has not been mirrored in more rapid or successful application development. There has always been a huge gap between marketing and reality in the IT industry.


Very well said. That just about sums up the reasons why I don't care for DTS, SSIS, CLR's, Business Objects, and a host of other flashy computational aberrations that supposedly enable people to be more productive. People have to become familiar in many areas to do what... Import a simple file? Do a simple split? Create a running total? Join a couple of tables? How many times have you seen a DTS or SSIS job where something (supposedly) can't be done and people revert to an writing an ActiveX component or a PERL script or CLR... etc, etc. I'm seeing that in my current job, alot! And, everything they're writing that way is either slow or horribly and unnecessarily complex. For example, they have a very complex file type to import that defies all conventional methods of import. They wrote a DTS job that uses Perl scripts, ActiveX and a couple of other computational flavors. It takes 40 minutes on a file of just 30,000 rows and 215 columns wide just to get the file ready for import never mind doing the actual import. Using 100% T-SQL in a comparitively short sproc, I get the same thing done PLUS the actual import in 92 seconds.

Microsoft keeps adding/releasing products to "make it easier" to use SQL Server. As a result, people who know nothing of databases are now using and abusing it. It's made SQL Server much more popular, but it sure plays hell on systems when these people touch the data.

Some folks say I'm being stubborn about not using tools other than T-SQL. I guess that's pretty much true... when I can take a complex file import from 40+ minutes down to 90 seconds or write T-SQL to change a 24 hour, 62 database dupe-check that would usually fail, to a very lean T-SQL sproc that does 93 databases in 15 minutes and hasn't failed yet, I'm thinking that lots of folks just haven't taken the time to really explore the full potential of SQL Server and, especially, T-SQL. Further, it only took me three days to do it including final acceptance testing. The original dupe check, written in C#, took 2 developers 2 weeks to make something slow, unreliable, and not leave enough time in a day to actually do the full 93 database requirement.

As you can tell, I not only agree that all these flashy products HAVEN'T increased productivity, effeciency, accuracy, or performance of applications, I believe that they've generally caused a decrease in all of that and an increase in the cost of getting products to market even if the market is "in house usage". There are exceptions, of course, like Reporting Services, but for the most part, I think most folks have fallen for the Microsoft marketing strategy and the "you're stupid if you don't do this" mentality... I think the flash of all that other stuff get's in their eyes when it comes to making common sense and innovative applications.

--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.
Although they tell us that they want it real bad, our primary goal is to ensure that we dont actually give it to them that way.
Although change is inevitable, change for the better is usually not.
Just because you can do something in PowerShell, doesnt mean you should. Wink

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Forum FAQs
Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC-Dedicated
SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (35K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 35984 Visits: 18728
Are we sure it takes longer for new applications? I know we're in a mode of enhancing applications in small ways on a regular basis, but it seems that we do often develop new applications in months or even weeks instead of years.

Is quality down? Not sure about that, it's not great now, but it wasn't great before. At least not 10-15 years ago.

I do agree that more and more we have people that are less and less qualified touching applications and making life hard for us.

We upgrade too much, and I think that's a problem. Instead of charging for support and having longer lifecycles, we have shorter lifecycles, and often free or discounted support (and we get what we pay for). I think I'd like to have us go back to 4-5 year time frames for new versions and have support for 8-12 years for each one.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
Jeff Moden
Jeff Moden
SSC-Forever
SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 44940 Visits: 39859
BWHAAA-HAAAA! What life cycle? People can't even spell it anymore.

--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.
Although they tell us that they want it real bad, our primary goal is to ensure that we dont actually give it to them that way.
Although change is inevitable, change for the better is usually not.
Just because you can do something in PowerShell, doesnt mean you should. Wink

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Forum FAQs
Phil Factor
Phil Factor
Right there with Babe
Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 739 Visits: 2937
Certainly in the UK, we are beset by a number of failures of high-profile government IT initiatives. I feel sure that the average run-of-the-mill IT application within any organization is taking longer to complete. Even fifteen years ago, had I come up with an IT application to support a business that was going to take a year to implement, I'd have been laughed at.

This is always going to be subjective, but there certainly seems to be a perception that applications just don't seem to be developed any faster for all the 'Rapid Application Development' going on. Jonathan Sachs developed the whole of Lotus 123 V1 in assembler code in just six months in 1982, and the whole project took only a year.


Best wishes,

Phil Factor
Simple Talk
StarNamer
StarNamer
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1294 Visits: 1992
Phil Factor (12/15/2008)
This is always going to be subjective, but there certainly seems to be a perception that applications just don't seem to be developed any faster for all the 'Rapid Application Development' going on. Jonathan Sachs developed the whole of Lotus 123 V1 in assembler code in just six months in 1982, and the whole project took only a year.
I've often felt that application development was faster when the tools were simpler.

In addition, there was much tighter control over the result. For example, a "hello world" can still be written using the DOS debug command...
C:\> debug
-n helloworld.com
-a 100
1552:0100 mov dx,010b
1552:0103 mov ah,9
1552:0105 int 21
1552:0107 mov ah,4c
1552:0109 int 21
1552:010B db 'Hello, World!',0d,0a,'$'
1552:011B
-r cx
CX 0000
:1b
-w
Writing 0001B bytes
-q

The result is all of 27 bytes long.

For a Visual Basic 2005 console application...
Module HelloWorld

Sub Main()
Console.WriteLine("Hello, World!")
End Sub

End Module

The compiled executable is 24.5 Mbyte!

Derek
Phil Factor
Phil Factor
Right there with Babe
Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)Right there with Babe (739 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 739 Visits: 2937
// You can still do it in under 2K
// Maybe we'll have to start a software movement for old
// codgers like me who like writing compact software in assembler code


.assembly extern mscorlib {} //Common Object Runtime Library
.assembly HelloWorld
{
.ver 1:0:0:1
} //we can add a lot more information in this block
.module HelloWorld.exe //the module name of our assembly
.method static void main() cil managed
{
.maxstack 1//max no. of items on the parameter stack
.entrypoint

ldstr "Hello world!"
call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine (string)
ret
}



Best wishes,

Phil Factor
Simple Talk
Jeff Moden
Jeff Moden
SSC-Forever
SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)SSC-Forever (44K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 44940 Visits: 39859
Heh...

ECHO "Hello World"



SELECT 'Hello World'




PRINT 'Hello World'

--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.
Although they tell us that they want it real bad, our primary goal is to ensure that we dont actually give it to them that way.
Although change is inevitable, change for the better is usually not.
Just because you can do something in PowerShell, doesnt mean you should. Wink

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Forum FAQs
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search