May 17, 2010 at 12:18 pm
No they won't. They do not have qualifications and the abilties and don't want to spend the money for someone who does. Their "DBA" is someone who had experience with Excel and has taken one class in SS 2000. And she is required to spend 95% of each day taking calls from web app users and managing their registrations. The DBA's for one of their contractors is a network admin who had some experience in dBase. The DBA for the other is a developer who has picked up enough over the years to be dangerous. Anything more complex than doing and restoring a backup is beyond them.
May 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I want to make it totally impossible to use a SQL reserved word or T-SQL extension as an object name.
Being able to wrap up a reserved word in square brackets or quoted identifiers and have it treated like a legitimate name is just asking for trouble.
May 17, 2010 at 3:58 pm
good point David, how about disallowing spaces in object names as well?
I came across a database the other day where the logical filenames were:
this is the database data file for database xyz
and
this is the database transaction log file for database xyz
:blink:
Also as others have said before the default growth factors for newly created databases are strange to say the least.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
May 18, 2010 at 7:28 am
I'm torn between whacking SSMS as Buck Woody suggests, or allowing add-ins.
SSMS might not be perfect, but what would we use instead? When you say "whack SSMS" it sounds like you want to get rid of it completely. I followed the link and didn't see Buck Woody suggesting anything like that there.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
May 18, 2010 at 8:19 am
Buck wants to go back to the MMC, things like the right-click-MyComputer-Manage.
There were plug ins for managing SQL 2K.
I liked Enterprise Manager. Personally I'd like to replace SSMS with a series of tools that do more specialized things. Make them smaller and more functional. Give me an object browser, a log viewer, a profiler, and have them able to communicate with each other and an editor.
May 18, 2010 at 8:34 am
Steve Jones - Editor (5/18/2010)
Buck wants to go back to the MMC, things like the right-click-MyComputer-Manage.There were plug ins for managing SQL 2K.
I liked Enterprise Manager. Personally I'd like to replace SSMS with a series of tools that do more specialized things. Make them smaller and more functional. Give me an object browser, a log viewer, a profiler, and have them able to communicate with each other and an editor.
Funny, I like SSMS far more than Enterprise Manager. Opening new files instead of replacing the open one, intellisense, being able to see the tables on your linked servers, etc... I just like the look and feel of it more.
I also like having all the tools in one interface. You don't have to go searching for things when you want to perform a different task. I think having it all in one also helps newer users as they don't have to know the different programs exist. I've run into quite a few people that are surprised Profiler exists in any version just because it isn't in the same folder as the other interfaces.
And why do you want to have to keep jumping between programs to get something done? Why would you want your object browser and editor as two separate programs?
Ah well, everyone has their preferences. What'd really be nice is if they made SSMS configurable to the point that you could have the unified interface that I like or set it so it is a series of programs the way you'd like. It is certainly possible to do, but I doubt it'll happen.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
May 18, 2010 at 8:39 am
I thought SSMS would be great when I first saw it, but it's too fragmented for me.
The thing I've found is that I don't often keep jumping to different tasks. I browse properties/settings/objects and write queries most of the time. Sometimes I profile, sometimes I view logs, sometimes I do other stuff, but it's not any better than having separate tools digging through SSMS.
Plus with separate tools, I can alt-tab between them. I'm a keyboard guy, and so SSMS can slow me down and annoy me a lot.
But everyone has different views. My guess is we're pretty split in how we'd design things, so SSMS wouldn't be one that I'd put on my top 5 or top 10 list.
August 27, 2011 at 11:33 am
I mostly agree with Steve's suggestions.
I'm inclined to think that SSMS was a big downgrade from the EM QA + assorted MMC plugins combination that SQLS 2000 provided. The object browser in QA could have been improved a lot, but SMSS is only marginally better in that respect and for serious work with queries it is worse than QA in many respects.
Something that I would include in my list of 5 things to get rid of is the Guest account in each database, as suggested by Thomas LaRock. But providing a proper database defrag tool (the sort of thing described by Jeff) seems to me far more important than getting rid of things. I could do with a maintenance plan scripting feature too - I wrote one for 2000, as I had a pile of servers each with the same set of database schemas (but different data), same set of applications, and same maintenance requirements, and didn't want to go through the GUI a pile of times for each maintenance plan I needed; MS haven't provided a way of generating a script from a maintenance plan in 2005, 2008, 2008R2, and I don't know whether it's something that can be done from outside the database team with the newer SQL releases (haven't looked to see - maybe the tables that used to be writable have been reeplaced by non-writable DMVs; but even if the have maybe there ar sSPs that can help; or m,aybe they are still writable).
Tom
Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply