Analytical functions available in SQL 2005

  • Amit Raut

    SSCrazy

    Points: 2613

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item Analytical functions available in SQL 2005

  • Carlo Romagnano

    SSC-Insane

    Points: 21811

    Bah!

  • Christian Buettner-167247

    SSChampion

    Points: 13729

    Nice Question, but I dont understand this:

    Before answering the question:

    Analytical functions available in SQL 2005

    By Rob Stebbens, 2013/11/08

    And after answering the question:

    Analytical functions available in SQL 2005

    By Amit Raut, 2013/11/11

    :hehe:

    Best Regards,

    Chris Büttner

  • This was removed by the editor as SPAM

  • sqlnaive

    SSCoach

    Points: 17435

    Question from SQL 2005... 🙂

  • TomThomson

    SSC Guru

    Points: 104772

    Simple straightforward question. Useful (while SQL 2005 is still in widespread use) because MS documentation on this is unsatisfactory.

    I though the question would be difficult at first, because I skipped from SQL 2000 to SQL 2008 with only a glance at SQL 2005 to determine that it didn't have enough in it to justify the cost of migrating ourselves and all out customers, because I needed developers to sort out the appaling C++ and T-SQL application code, terrifyingly unnormalised schemata, and totally misguided system architecture that I had inherited rather than upgrade to a new MS version, so I didn't remember which of these functions was new in 2008 and which was already in 2005. But then I realised I could approach it the other way - look for the three that were not there, and three of these seven functions weren't in 2008 R2 let alone in 2005, so that gave me the answer. I expected the explanation to provide a nice straightforward reference to something about new features in 2005, but no - it seemed to follow the approach I had used and referenced a list of functions new in SQL 2012; I'm not sure that's a good way to explain this sort of thing, since without the "(Select 4)" in the question that doesn't provide an answer - it doesn't demonstrate that the other 4 functions were actually there - but i gues I shouldn't complain as that's the route I took to the answer; it made me go and check though, and as far as I can tell it is nowhere documented that these 4 functions are additions to T-SQL in 2005; of course each has its own page in Transact-SQL Reference for 2005, but it seems odd that the BOL list of new features makes no mention of them.

    Tom

  • free_mascot

    One Orange Chip

    Points: 27168

    Nice one... good to recall old days SQL 2005 🙂

    ---------------------------------------------------
    "Thare are only 10 types of people in the world:
    Those who understand binary, and those who don't."

  • Hany Helmy

    SSChampion

    Points: 13321

    Christian Buettner-167247 (11/11/2013)


    Nice Question, but I dont understand this:

    Before answering the question:

    Analytical functions available in SQL 2005

    By Rob Stebbens, 2013/11/08

    And after answering the question:

    Analytical functions available in SQL 2005

    By Amit Raut, 2013/11/11

    :hehe:

    Yep; I noticed this also not only for this question, it happened for other questions as well! weird hah. 😉

  • Ed Wagner

    SSC Guru

    Points: 286958

  • Thomas Abraham

    SSChampion

    Points: 10761

    L' Eomot Inversé (11/11/2013)


    ... as far as I can tell it is nowhere documented that these 4 functions are additions to T-SQL in 2005; of course each has its own page in Transact-SQL Reference for 2005, but it seems odd that the BOL list of new features makes no mention of them.

    Agree with Tom on backward reference. This was the best reference I could find that listed all four together: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fooe7f917ba-bf4a-4fe0-b342-a91bcf88a71b.aspx

    [font="Verdana"]Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.[/font]
    Connect to me on LinkedIn

  • tabinsc

    SSCommitted

    Points: 1812

    Wow! Got it right just by picking the 4 I had actually heard of.

    Tony
    ------------------------------------
    Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

  • mtassin

    SSC-Insane

    Points: 23096

    I sort of did it like Tom

    I knew that LAG and LEAD and PERCENT_RANK were all 2012 features (and some of the reasons we wanted 2012).



    --Mark Tassin
    MCITP - SQL Server DBA
    Proud member of the Anti-RBAR alliance.
    For help with Performance click this link[/url]
    For tips on how to post your problems[/url]

  • Koen Verbeeck

    SSC Guru

    Points: 258955

    Easy one, thanks.

    Need an answer? No, you need a question
    My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
    MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP

  • Revenant

    SSC-Forever

    Points: 42467

    It was a "down the memory hole" for me - I have not touched 2005 in almost six years.

    Thanks for the question, Amit!

  • TomThomson

    SSC Guru

    Points: 104772

    Thomas Abraham (11/11/2013)


    L' Eomot Inversé (11/11/2013)


    ... as far as I can tell it is nowhere documented that these 4 functions are additions to T-SQL in 2005; of course each has its own page in Transact-SQL Reference for 2005, but it seems odd that the BOL list of new features makes no mention of them.

    Agree with Tom on backward reference. This was the best reference I could find that listed all four together: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fooe7f917ba-bf4a-4fe0-b342-a91bcf88a71b.aspx[/quote]

    That's a good reference.

    But ... ... I wonder if I'm the only person who finds it irritating that this dom=cumentation is provided only in Windows Server documentation - it's not in SQL Server Product Documentation, so not in Books OnLine. I think Microsoft got this wrong, there's too much stuff that belongs in the Transact-SQL Reference section of BOL that is not there but in the Windows Server documentation instead. Why isn't it in both places?

    Tom

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply