Timestamps
-
wolfkillj (5/6/2013)
Good question - I appreciate the QotDs that demonstrate quirky behavior.It bears mention that Microsoft has slated the "timestamp" syntax for deprecation in favor of "rowversion" as of SQL Server 2008R2: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776(v=sql.105).aspx.
Even in BOL for SQL Server 2005, Microsoft recommends using "rowversion" instead of "timestamp": http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776(v=sql.90).aspx
Totally true, and I agree that everyone should start replacing "timestamp" with "rowversion" if they have not already done so.
However, this *IS* one of those cases where you are supposed to do as Microsoft says, not as Microsoft does. Microsoft itself does not follow their own advice. For instance, if you create a table with a "rowversion" column, then ask SSMS to create a CREATE script for that table - it will use "timestamp".
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/ -
wolfkillj (5/6/2013)
Good question - I appreciate the QotDs that demonstrate quirky behavior.It bears mention that Microsoft has slated the "timestamp" syntax for deprecation in favor of "rowversion" as of SQL Server 2008R2: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776(v=sql.105).aspx.
Even in BOL for SQL Server 2005, Microsoft recommends using "rowversion" instead of "timestamp": http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776(v=sql.90).aspx
You are right. I used timestamp as are using it in our living databases.
Thamk you, you are first to discuss timestamps/rowversions 😀
See, understand, learn, try, use efficient
© Dr.Plch -
Hugo Kornelis (5/6/2013)
wolfkillj (5/6/2013)
Good question - I appreciate the QotDs that demonstrate quirky behavior.It bears mention that Microsoft has slated the "timestamp" syntax for deprecation in favor of "rowversion" as of SQL Server 2008R2: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776(v=sql.105).aspx.
Even in BOL for SQL Server 2005, Microsoft recommends using "rowversion" instead of "timestamp": http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776(v=sql.90).aspx
Totally true, and I agree that everyone should start replacing "timestamp" with "rowversion" if they have not already done so.
However, this *IS* one of those cases where you are supposed to do as Microsoft says, not as Microsoft does. Microsoft itself does not follow their own advice. For instance, if you create a table with a "rowversion" column, then ask SSMS to create a CREATE script for that table - it will use "timestamp".
Hi Hugo,
I suspect that rowversion is probably still just a datatype synonym for the timestamp datatype. As BOL says,
Data type synonyms can be used instead of the corresponding base data type name in data definition language (DDL) statements, such as CREATE TABLE, CREATE PROCEDURE, or DECLARE @variable. However, after the object is created, the synonyms have no visibility. When the object is created, the object is assigned the base data type that is associated with the synonym. There is no record that the synonym was specified in the statement that created the object.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177566(v=sql.105).aspx
I'm not really sure then what MS means when it says the timestamp "syntax" is deprecated. Does that mean that the timestamp datatype will actually be renamed "rowversion" at some later date and MS is just trying to wean us off "timestamp" now?
Jason
Jason Wolfkill
-
Hugo Kornelis (5/6/2013)
demonfox (5/6/2013)
What do you mean ?? posting in the Qotd forum doesn't give any points .. it's only when you reply in the blog forums ..If that is the case, then this must have recently changed. And I have not seen the change announced.
According to http://www.sqlservercentral.com/TotalScores, I currently have 5192 total points, 1602 from posts, and 3590 from QotD answers. I hardly ever post anything outside of the QotD boards, so those 1602 posts can never be from other boards only. Most of them have to come from QotD boards. If they don't count now, they certainly HAVE counted in the past!
And I am not the only one who beliefs that to be the case. I have lost track of how often people post in QotD boards that (a) they lost a point but post to reclaim, or that (b) someone else should stop complaining about losing a point because they reclaimed it by posting that complaint.
EDIT: I, too, checked http://www.sqlservercentral.com/TotalScores again after posting. It does indeed still list the same amount of points. But the box next to this post says I now have 5193 points, one more. Looks like there merely is a delay in updating http://www.sqlservercentral.com/TotalScores
EDIT 2: Just checked again, and this time the TotalScores page is updated as well. This confirms my theory that posts do give you a point, but there is some delay in updating that page. (Eventual consistency - NoSQL, perhaps?)
The points are aggregated via a job on a schedule I believe.
On the topic of people offering thanks for the question etc etc etc. Since I like to do it, I will confess to the reason behind it. Sometimes it needs no technical discussion but I would rather try and foster some good will to the person submitting the question. I feel it helps to encourage them to continue creating this little brain challenge. So in my case, I would rather continue to see the "Thank you" type of dross so as to foster building up of the community. I like to think of it as genuine.
Enough people berate the Question submitters that encouragement is also needed - even if it is only 2 words of "Thank You."
And yes, there may be some using it as a means of gaming the system - but really what does that get them? If their ego is fed by how many points they have, then so be it.
😎
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events -
So many choices for a single point... 🙂
Thanks for the question!
-
SQLRNNR (5/6/2013)
On the topic of people offering thanks for the question etc etc etc. Since I like to do it, I will confess to the reason behind it. Sometimes it needs no technical discussion but I would rather try and foster some good will to the person submitting the question. I feel it helps to encourage them to continue creating this little brain challenge. So in my case, I would rather continue to see the "Thank you" type of dross so as to foster building up of the community. I like to think of it as genuine.Enough people berate the Question submitters that encouragement is also needed - even if it is only 2 words of "Thank You."
And yes, there may be some using it as a means of gaming the system - but really what does that get them? If their ego is fed by how many points they have, then so be it.
Okay, I now see that this discussion has taken a wrong turn. And that's my fault.
I am usually not bothered by people who post a thank you. I have posted some at times - though I rarely do so if I feel I don't have anything else to add.
What bothers me most about the point system is that it causes some people who feel a question was unfair to respond downright angry, demanding "points back" and stuff. I have no idea how value-less points cause people to expose their dark side in such ways. But I don't like it, and if taking away the points system would rid us of those post, I am all for it.
I do maintain that some of the "thank you" posters are, as far as I can see, not sincere. I especially get this feeling when I see a single person post equal-worded "thank you" posts in all topics of the last two weeks, and then does it again in another two weeks. I may be wrong, but it simply does not give me a sincere feeling.
For people who occasionally post a "thank you" after reading a question they like, or if they feel an author deserves to be compensated for an unfair bashing, I have no problem at all. It is not something I myself do very often, but I have no issue with those who do so,
However, just to ensure I am not misunderstood - the main reason why I would like Steve to get rid of the points system is to get rod of the nasty and hostile messages of people who are angry when they miss points.
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/ -
Hugo Kornelis (5/6/2013)
Okay, I now see that this discussion has taken a wrong turn. And that's my fault.Not at all. It's mot your fault. Your first post was most of technical, very precise as usual, and with your opinion.
I agree with you. Points are of very little value. Let the cheap point hunters to hunt their points. 😉
See, understand, learn, try, use efficient
© Dr.Plch -
Hugo Kornelis (5/6/2013)
wolfkillj (5/6/2013)
Good question - I appreciate the QotDs that demonstrate quirky behavior.It bears mention that Microsoft has slated the "timestamp" syntax for deprecation in favor of "rowversion" as of SQL Server 2008R2: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776(v=sql.105).aspx.
Even in BOL for SQL Server 2005, Microsoft recommends using "rowversion" instead of "timestamp": http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776(v=sql.90).aspx
Totally true, and I agree that everyone should start replacing "timestamp" with "rowversion" if they have not already done so.
However, this *IS* one of those cases where you are supposed to do as Microsoft says, not as Microsoft does. Microsoft itself does not follow their own advice. For instance, if you create a table with a "rowversion" column, then ask SSMS to create a CREATE script for that table - it will use "timestamp".
The only difference between ROWVersion and Timestamp is that we have to specify column name when using Rowversion while in case of Timestamp we dont have to specify a column name.
Is this the only difference between these two?
_______________________________________________________________
To get quick answer follow this link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ -
I always wondered how people got some many points for QoTD know I know !
Good question, re inforces the message to look before you leap and read the WHOLE question before answering !!
Hope this helps...
Ford Fairlane
Rock and Roll Detective
-
Great question...
-
Good questions..got puzzled with lot of options.... +0
-
It's a nice question, but the explanation is a bit light - no indication of why statement 6 fails. I know people will see the answer in BOL if they go there, but when something is as simple and straightforward as this it wouldn't take many words to include it in the explanation and I believe it should be.
Tom
-
L' Eomot Inversé (5/7/2013)
It's a nice question, but the explanation is a bit light - no indication of why statement 6 fails. I know people will see the answer in BOL if they go there, but when something is as simple and straightforward as this it wouldn't take many words to include it in the explanation and I believe it should be.You are right. I'll try to remember in some future QotD.
See, understand, learn, try, use efficient
© Dr.Plch -
Well, nice one.
To all those complaining about losing points... If you answer correctly, you just get the confirmation about your knowledge and are awarded with a point, if you fail, you learn something new or at least that you didn't read the question carefully. In other words, you can learn from failures, not from triumphs and in this case the failure costs nothing.
-
I, too, missed the batch and lost my points - good question
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 56 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply