Hi All,
I received a copy of SQL Server 2005 Standard at a conference. To say
the least I am beyond blown away!!
Anyway, I went out and purchased Visual Studio 2005 Pro. When installing
it also installed SQL Server Express (I thought it would skip it since
standard was already there. I was going to uninstall express but I
wanted to make sure:
It won't screw up my Visual Studio install?
And in Add/Remove programs that is referenced by the "SQL Server Desktop
Engine". Am I right?
Thanks for your input.
Also was curious how the old timers feel about SQL becoming an object
orientated language platform? I guess in some ways it already was. I
just had never thought of it that way before.
KellyYou're about to start a holy war :)
"Also was curious how the old timers feel about SQL becoming an object
orientated language platform? I guess in some ways it already was. I
just had never thought of it that way before."
SQL is not an OOL, and I would try to avoid thinking of it like that.
SQL is a set-oriented language; data is handled en masse. That being
said, I am excited about the inclusion of the CLR in SQL Server because
it allows me to write functions to augment the data I collect and store
in my database (for example, I can write a function in the CLR to
handle conversion of my ip addresses from dotted quad to integer
format, allowing me to select greater ranges of related data).
However, I sat through one of the SQL Road Show discussions for
developers, and groaned as I heard developer after developer ask how
could store their complex business objects in SQL Server; I would hate
to be the DBA supporting that shop, because performance will suffer. I
butt heads with our OOP developers all the time because they want to
iterate through a collection and insert one row of data at a time into
our warehouse. SQL works best with sets; that's what it's designed
for.
Not sure about your installation questions, but wanted to drop my.02 in
before it got ugly :)
Stu|||Hello scorpion53061,
> Anyway, I went out and purchased Visual Studio 2005 Pro. When
> installing it also installed SQL Server Express (I thought it would
> skip it since standard was already there. I was going to uninstall
> express but I wanted to make sure:
> It won't screw up my Visual Studio install?
Nope. Uninstalling Express shouldn't mess up your VS install.
> And in Add/Remove programs that is referenced by the "SQL Server
> Desktop Engine". Am I right?
No, that's MSDE, the SQL Server 2000 version of SQL Server 2005 Express Edit
ion.
Express should be clearly labelled as Express.
> Also was curious how the old timers feel about SQL becoming an object
> orientated language platform? I guess in some ways it already was. I
> just had never thought of it that way before.
It's not, see my response to Stu.
Thank you,
Kent Tegels
DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/|||Hello Stu,
> You're about to start a holy war :)
> "Also was curious how the old timers feel about SQL becoming an object
> orientated language platform? I guess in some ways it already was. I
> just had never thought of it that way before."
It's always been a platform for OOPs, just as Textfiles, sockets, RAM, etc.
Nothing to build a Jihad on. ;)
> SQL is not an OOL, and I would try to avoid thinking of it like that.
Its true that SQL, and in our space, T-SQL, is not an OOPL, and yes, its
wise to not think of it as one. But SQL Server isn't just a T-SQL processor.
The "Box Pox" (LINQ) is all about adding query processing to the OOPL. How
that will work out is yet to be seen, but it's clear that something like
it will materalize.
> SQL is a set-oriented language; data is handled en masse. That being
> said, I am excited about the inclusion of the CLR in SQL Server
> because it allows me to write functions to augment the data I collect
> and store in my database (for example, I can write a function in the
> CLR to handle conversion of my ip addresses from dotted quad to
> integer format, allowing me to select greater ranges of related data).
Exactly. SQLCLR should be used to extend the reach and depth of T-SQL as
a tool for solving data manipulation problems with high degrees of parallali
zation
and volumes of disk I/O.
> However, I sat through one of the SQL Road Show discussions for
> developers, and groaned as I heard developer after developer ask how
> could store their complex business objects in SQL Server; I would hate
> to be the DBA supporting that shop, because performance will suffer.
I'm glad somebody actually remembers my talk from the Roadshows where I was
"don't do that" for using UDTs as mapped objects. :)
Its not only raw performance that suffers, but its the total sustainability
of the application that does as well.
> I butt heads with our OOP developers all the time because they want to
> iterate through a collection and insert one row of data at a time into
> our warehouse. SQL works best with sets; that's what it's designed
> for.
Yep. Now I would argue that if developers really do want to store object
data in a database, store the serialized XML and be done with it. Provided
it has a good fixed schema. :)
Thank you,
Kent Tegels
DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/
