Writing SQL Faster

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item Writing SQL Faster

  • I hate the way articles on this site have started to become "adverts"

    if it's a balanced article about the merits of refactoring and intellisense then mention the competition.

    what could have been a good article just irritated the hell out of me - perhapsthere should be a seperate section for product reviews. then articles such as "writing sql faster" can be about reducing the amount of code you actually use, or using re-usable code. - articles about DR can be about best practices and unforseen circumstances rather than redgate sql backup.

    maybe i just got out of bed on the wrong side this morning , but after i opened the link to what looked like a promising article and found a redgate advert i just started to go GRRRRRRRRR


  • One reason never to use this product, just how is


    @error = @@ERROR


    0 = @error


    0 < @@trancount





    easier to read than

    if 0 = @error AND 0 < @@trancount






    Also whats with the shocking tabbing?? For readability both examples aren't great, but the 'refactored' version is definitely worse!

  • I don't know if it's true or not but I've read somewhere on Internet in some article that intellisense will be there in SQL 2008. Does anyone know if its true?

  • I think maybe a better title would have helped, it really does feel like a review. Nothing wrong with a review and in the course of that I'd expect someone to show me how I'd benefit (or not) from buying the product. I would definitely like to see an article that looks at the state of Intellisense type implementations across vendors, including MS.

  • Product literature belongs at http://www.red-gate.com. Not even a mention of other techniques, or products. Bush league guys.

  • I participated in a technical SQL forum at Tech-ED in Orlando this year that focused on Intellisense that Microsoft is developing for SQL.  We saw the current stage of their development and strongly encouraged them to get what they currently have stabilized and to include it in the release of SQL 2008.

    We provided feedback on the features we would like to see and how  it is to operate.  Primarily we said that it should operate much like the Intellisense does in Visual Studio. 

  • Apologies if any of you felt decieved, but I mentioned this was a short tutorial on Red Gate's products in the description. It was definitely sent to me as a product review type piece and I ran it as such. We have run product reviews and "white papers" before, so I'm a little surprised by the comments.

    The word at TechEd from the PM for tools is that Intellisense WILL be in SS2K8. I didn't see the current state and have no idea how it compares with SQLPrompt, but MS is apparently committed to getting it in SSMS.

  • Steve,

    I think the # of "product reviews" has gone way up.

    Also, in the past it was easier to recognize real articles of value from product hype.

  • I have tried to run a few more reviews since the advertising has gone down to get exposure to products. This year we've run 11, 82 in 6 years, so slightly up to date. We've run one of OfficeWriter (included in SS2K8), SQLCentric, Typhoon III, NGSQuirrrel, APEX Log, Log Explorer, Refactor, MS's DPM, MS's Web Data Administrator, and now this one.

    I'll try to make it clearer it's a review of a product rather than an article in the future. I know that some of you don't want to see reviews, but they do serve a purpose and when you need a product, it's nice that they're out there.

  • I don't see anything wrong with reviews, as long as labeled as such.

  • I am an avid user of Red-Gate products, but it is pretty sickening that the articles on what used to be the best SQL site are becoming advertorials. A waste of my time and a big hit on the creditablity of this venue.



    Denver, CO

  • I need to agree with Tim. I think Red-Gate makes great products and I've found them helpful, however SqlServerCentral.com is under the control of Red-Gate so they have an inherent conflict of interest here.

    I can't imagine Steve publishing a "review" that slams Red-Gate and due to the conflict of interest these "reviews" really become advertisements to sell product, regardless of who writes them.

    Perhaps we could have full disclosure as to the relationship between the author of the column(s) and Red-Gate and also if the author is compensated, in anyway, by Red-Gate ?

    My $0.02.



  • The article was commissioned by Red Gate and sent to me, same as any other article, though I'm honestly not sure if me, being SSC, is paying for it or Red Gate is. The author doesn't work for Red Gate AFAIK, but I could be wrong.

    I don't want to make excuses here, but I'm still not sure how much this is a "Red Gate" overwhelming of the site. I still run the site as I choose and I wasn't pressured to run this article. Nor the survey earlier this week. I've run similar things for other companies. The SQLCentric review and the OfficeWriter review earlier this year were sent to me by those companies.

    I thought this was a good way to show off products and I've sent it to a few other companies, asking them to do something similar. I think 3rd party tools are an important part of the community. And for the record, EVERY review we've ever run has been ok'd by the vendor, no matter who they are. We haven't necessarily thought it was fair for someone to slam a product unfairly, especially me or someone else. It's too easy for bad press to overwhelm good press and it's the same battle most publishers have problems with. We have in fact not put out a couple reviews in our 6 years at the request of the vendor. None of them were Red Gate and I'll decline to name names.

    If you can point out specifically how Red Gate is driving the site, I'll look at what I'm doing. It's a fine line to walk and I definitely appreciate the feedback, positive or negative.

  • I use the RedGate products and find that they do speed things up.

    There is a layout file used SQL Refactor that can be edited to give you the layout you want when you ask the product to layout your code.

    There are bits I don't like about SQL Prompt. Intellisense for functions link DATEDIFF would make life easier or the enum for the CONVERT function.

    I think Steve is in a "Death or Bongo" situation. Short of publishing an article that criticises RedGate left, right and centre SSC is always going to be accused of bias if RedGate tools are reviewed.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)

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