January 23, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Chris Harshman (1/23/2009)
It's not that I don't like using SQL Server, ... The tools and features that come with [SQL Server] provide so much more value than Oracle does. ...
Chris, thanks for the reply.
I didn't think that anyone answering this Friday poll was being particularly anti SQL Server. These kinds of thoughts are relevant and appropriate and hopefully MS is listening/reading/taking this feedback seriously.
I was just hoping my post would inspire a different Friday pole where people get to be really specific about what is good about SQL Server. I think that kind of balance is important. The good stuff is not self-evident to me, especially when so many of the ideas posted here seem like no-brainers that should have been included years ago. (And also since I've developed a hate relationship with SSIS that has me a bit down about SQL Server in general.)
That aside: lately I've been looking for specific ideas (not "I like my DB product better because I like it better") that I can use to reply to people when they start touting their favorite DB. This seemed like a good time to state my wish.
Your points about Oracle are well received. They are certainly some of the reasons that Oracle hasn't appealed to me. Jeff's point about a paradigm shift is another reason. If SQL Server is meeting almost all of my agency's needs and if I'm already trained in SQL Server, why would I switch to something that would require a lot of retraining and not give us any benefits?
January 23, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Matt Miller (1/23/2009)
As for me, I would settle for actual, complete, documentation of the new features added as they are added. Functionality changes, "this doesn't work in x version anymore", some GOOD examples.But hey - full XML support, ordered sets and windowed functions, and the ability to manage committed transactions would be awesome too....:)
And Santa, when you read this - I could REALLY use that home Cray. I PROMISE I'll behave....:)
Heh... Cray... showing your age again, Matt. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Matt Miller (1/23/2009)
Jeff Moden (1/23/2009)
I'll add another wish... there's a lot of things (not just running totals) that require "looking" at a range of previous or next rows. It would be handy to have a set of functions and aggregations that do that easily.You've already asked for this (in the "properly windowed functions" category)....:)
Agreed... just wanted to make sure everyone knew what I meant. 😀 Stop and think about how bad they flubbed the PIVOT function.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 23, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Joshua Perry (1/23/2009)
Create a new class library with your favorite .NET language:
Man, I appreciate your effort, but, heh... the no such thing for me. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 25, 2009 at 9:15 am
For the investment industry, it would be great if we have two key functionalities:
1. CLR-based math/finance classes (managed-code) that can support large matrices and time series analysis
2. Data quality, data sampling functions to help identify and screen out the below average quality investment data provided by the industry data providers (BBR, Reuters, etc)
TN
January 25, 2009 at 9:56 am
some interesting replies here here. Sorry I wasn't in the discussion earlier as I was coming home from the UK.
The CLR has definitely made SQL Server a more complete platform. I wonder if there might be a market for specific "add ons" for areas like PCI, investments, etc. of CLR objects? The spatial stuff is a CLR add on, as is the HierarchyID.
Cross platform probably will never happen. I used to want this, but I think it's becoming less relevant with virtualization and I'm not sure I see a benefit.
January 25, 2009 at 4:58 pm
GSquared (1/23/2009)
A variable type that allowed for delimited text, which could be used in IN statements straight from an input parameterAn object variable type that allowed table/column/etc names which could be used in place of complex dynamic SQL solutions, and could be used as an input parameter (death to injection attacks!)
I like the idea of developing with variables:) This is why I advocate supplementing sql server with Dataphor. Unfortuneatly the computer science of sql is (when talking about tables) variable-less. The idea of a table as a variable, just like a string or number variable, is alien to most sql users. And unfortuneatly they (unlike you) do not readily see the advantages of a table 'type'. They cannot see how such a thing eliminates a large proportion of 'dynamic' sql. Nor how it overcomes the limitations of a cte. Perhaps a list or array type is more intuitive (any certainly comes in handy). Types and variables are at the core of a relational db. But it has a much different computer science than sql (and I don't think they're about to change it).
I've be trying to get sql users who can see these things to make the jump:) But I will reiterate for the sake of clarity that Dataphor does not 'replace' sql server. It works with it. They are integrated and can easily talk to each other. For those who like sql server and who appreciate developing in a strongly typed imperative environment it's the best of both worlds.
More on 2 for the price of 1 at:
January 26, 2009 at 1:39 am
To anyone concerned with the number of responses on this thread, I'd offer a thought. There's not one suggestion yet that concerns SQL Server's ability to efficiently, stably and reliably store and serve up data. All the suggestions (and I agree with pretty much all of them) are about nice-to-haves, not areas where basics are lacking, and I challenge you all to think of another piece of software that would fare as well under the same scrutiny. There are a few, but they're rare.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 26, 2009 at 8:35 am
majorbloodnock (1/26/2009)
To anyone concerned with the number of responses on this thread, I'd offer a thought. There's not one suggestion yet that concerns SQL Server's ability to efficiently, stably and reliably store and serve up data. All the suggestions (and I agree with pretty much all of them) are about nice-to-haves, not areas where basics are lacking, and I challenge you all to think of another piece of software that would fare as well under the same scrutiny. There are a few, but they're rare.
I know exactly what you mean. You can take my Word for it that the Outlook is bright for SQL Server to Excel to new heights. The engine is stable. I love the fact that I can "get it up" right out of the box. Tuning for a specific installation may take a bit to cover all the bases, but hey, I sell services.
ATBCharles Kincaid
January 26, 2009 at 9:00 am
majorbloodnock, well said. SQL Server does work extremely well for the basics of what we need and it's definitely one of the most stable pieces of software I've worked with.
Now the Service Packs have been spotty at times, but overall the quality is very high for the platform.
January 26, 2009 at 10:54 am
One of the big things that I would like to see is the ability to right click on a table and then enter a table description. Why haven't they added this functionality? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
January 26, 2009 at 11:20 am
Will Summers (1/26/2009)
One of the big things that I would like to see is the ability to right click on a table and then enter a table description. Why haven't they added this functionality? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Have you taken a look at Extended Properties? You can pretty much do exactly what you're asking for.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 26, 2009 at 11:25 am
Steve Jones - Editor (1/26/2009)
majorbloodnock, well said. SQL Server does work extremely well for the basics of what we need and it's definitely one of the most stable pieces of software I've worked with.Now the Service Packs have been spotty at times, but overall the quality is very high for the platform.
I absolutely agree... and one of my favoritie proprietary pieces of code is UPDATE FROM... if that were not available, you'd end up having to do updates like in some other RDBMSs... a pot wad of correlated subqueries in both the SET list and the WHERE clause. Yeah, yeah... MERGE fixes a lot of that problem, but UPDATE FROM has always made it super easy to do joined table updates in SQL Server. And, the syntax is still simpler on the Mark-1 Eyeball than merge (IMHO).
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 26, 2009 at 11:28 am
As a side bar, I've finally discovered the true meaning of the acronym "CLR"...
[font="Arial Black"]C[/font]ursors, [font="Arial Black"]L[/font]oops, and other [font="Arial Black"]R[/font]BAR. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 26, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Jeff Moden (1/26/2009)
I absolutely agree... and one of my favoritie proprietary pieces of code is UPDATE FROM... if that were not available, you'd end up having to do updates like in some other RDBMSs... a pot wad of correlated subqueries in both the SET list and the WHERE clause. Yeah, yeah... MERGE fixes a lot of that problem, but UPDATE FROM has always made it super easy to do joined table updates in SQL Server. And, the syntax is still simpler on the Mark-1 Eyeball than merge (IMHO).
Interesting. Here's an opposing view:
'Let's deprecate UPDATE FROM!'
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hugo_kornelis/archive/2008/07/07/5515.aspx#7702
CLR:=Can't Lick Rbar
Visit here for a gentleman's agreement to model relationally:
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 81 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply