QOD 17th Nov
-
Ok IN SQL BOL it states the following
quote:
;numberIs an optional integer used to group procedures of the same name so they can be dropped together with a single DROP PROCEDURE statement. For example, the procedures used with an application called orders may be named orderproc;1, orderproc;2, and so on. The statement DROP PROCEDURE orderproc drops the entire group. If the name contains delimited identifiers, the number should not be included as part of the identifier; use the appropriate delimiter around procedure_name only.
The key is this "Is an optional integer used to group procedures of the same name".
In other words can is designed to group related procedures of the same name. This is not a versioning feature. The Author of the book needs to redo his wording and state he has found a side bennifit to himself by using the grouping part of stored procedures creation to allow limited versioning.
Also as SQL is still based in part upon the original Sybase egine you will find this in their documentation
quote:
Procedure groupsThe optional semicolon and integer number after the name of the procedure in the create procedure and execute statements allow you to group procedures of the same name so that they can be dropped together with a single drop procedure statement.
Procedures used in the same application are often grouped this way. For example, you might create a series of procedures called orders;1, orders;2, and so on. The following statement would drop the entire group:
drop proc orders
Once procedures have been grouped by appending a semicolon and number to their names, they cannot be dropped individually. For example, the following statement is not allowed:
drop proc orders;2
To run Adaptive Server in the evaluated configuration, you must prohibit grouping of procedures. This prohibition ensures that every stored procedure has a unique object identifier and can be dropped individually. To disallow procedure grouping, a System Security Officer must reset the allow procedure grouping configuration parameter. For information, see the System Administration Guide.
Still no mention of versioning, it is plan and simple a way to use a common name for multiple possilities making it easy to drop all at once if you might ever need to. This is a poor question, does present an option but it is not being a common use or documented feature will vary rarly be answered, plus as stated given the DTS option will definently not draw a look due to it's non-standard nature.
-
"This is a poor question"
OK, well, thanks for the skewer. I'll think twice about posting a question from now on. ;-/
I represented it as I found it, did look in BOL, and did not find anything to contradict the author's comment. I have experimented with it as a feature, and have found that it is not terribly useful.
-
quote:
"This is a poor question"OK, well, thanks for the skewer. I'll think twice about posting a question from now on. ;-/
I represented it as I found it, did look in BOL, and did not find anything to contradict the author's comment. I have experimented with it as a feature, and have found that it is not terribly useful.
Sorry didn't mean don't bother posting, just that this particular one has many downsides to it. Heck coming up with a unique question to stump someone is not an easy task at all.
-
Kevin,
I think your question would be fair if DTS packages were not a listed option. While this approach to procedure versioning is not mentioned in BOL, you say it was suggested in SQL Server 2000 Performance and Tuning, a MS Press publication. I think that qualifies your answer sufficiently.
I'm not sure this method is the best versioning approach for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post, but it does work as described, and it's certainly worth considering.
Furthermore, I now know something about procedures, that I didn't know previously. So as far as I'm concerned, your question was useful to me.
Thanks for the challenge. Don't stop posting questions because of this. Your's was certainly not the first question with issues.
Larry Ansley
Atlanta, GA
Larry Ansley
Atlanta, GA -
quote:
OK, well, thanks for the skewer. I'll think twice about posting a question from now on. ;-/No, no! Post again Kev! Look at all the people discussing how to use this rather obscure feature.
While I don't agree with the idea it is a thought provoking one. You've got lots of people thinking about it and that is how people learn, which is what many of them come here to do!
Keith Henry
DBA/Developer/BI Manager
Keith Henry
According to everyone I know I "do something with computers?" for a living, so there you go. -
I agree with the other sentiments. Please do post again, and thanks for a controversial question. Certainly beats the hell out of some of Keith's questions, which I'd love to refute if I could understand them.
I was one of the first skewerers, so I apologise for a discouraging post. If I had any diplomacy I'd be in management... where I could really create some havoc.
Cheers,
- Mark
Cheers,
- Mark -
I got it wrong too. And this is the first time I complain.
I answered 'DTS' and to me this is the only correct answer. DTS packages are the only objects in SQL server with versioning.
-
quote:
Certainly beats the hell out of some of Keith's questions, which I'd love to refute if I could understand them.My questions are easy (if you happen to be one of the 3 people who work in my rather obscure field)
Keith Henry
DBA/Developer/BI Manager
Keith Henry
According to everyone I know I "do something with computers?" for a living, so there you go. -
I came here to voice my objections on the "correct" answer bu I guess enough said!
-
Keith,
quote:
My questions are easyEasy for you to say...
Agree with above keep posting, may create adverse comments but hey, how else would we learn and I'm learning lots. Wish I had the guts to send in a question.
Can't think of a b****y question anyway.
Far away is close at hand in the images of elsewhere.
Anon. -
Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply