spivonious said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

MERGE is perhaps the greatest addition to SQL of all time.

Ion Todirel - I didn't know it was an integer... I guess my type got truncated to Type 1.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=663

Eve Online is about to move it's SQL back-end from SQL 2005 to SQL 2008, I think 64 bit. Will have to see if it makes the game any quicker and stops any lag

littleguru said:

SQL and SQL Server are tools... they are working fine and there's not THAT much innovation going on recently. That's probably why...

Ok, so SQL Server isn't  as 'Rockstar' as Silverlight but the innovations really don't get any ....

BIGGER!

Let me give you a couple of examples, this one quoted straight from the 2008 R2 website,

• Combines native Excel 2010 functionality with an in-memory, column oriented processing engine to allow users to interactively explore and perform calculations on millions of rows of data at lightening speeds

How many CPU's?

• Increase in the number of logical processors supported from 64 up to 256.  This will provide customers with more choices for obtaining single system scalability with high performance.

Scale Your Data Warehouse from Terabytes to Petabytes (website for more info is here)

A Madison MPP appliance acts as an enterprise “hub” that publishes data as needed to various business units or departments (spokes). For dedicated high performance requirements, individual business units can redeploy SQL Server 2008 data marts, or deploy their own Madison appliances, as spokes.

See! SQL Server is sub-zero cool!

I'm type 1. I can do the following:
 - Connect to the database
 - Standard basic queries

That's pretty much it. But it is certainly a cause for concern as far as my skill set goes. I just haven't decided what route I want to take in order to increase my SQL knowledge without doing it on-the-job. Anyone know a good resource to help self-teach SQL? Like a *cough* free *cough* course with exercises and some tips thrown in?

ManipUni said:

I'm type 1. I can do the following:
 - Connect to the database
 - Standard basic queries

That's pretty much it. But it is certainly a cause for concern as far as my skill set goes. I just haven't decided what route I want to take in order to increase my SQL knowledge without doing it on-the-job. Anyone know a good resource to help self-teach SQL? Like a *cough* free *cough* course with exercises and some tips thrown in?

 

Manip I'm like your Fairy-God-Father today! So I will grant your wish for free SQL Server training !!!!

Lots of webcasts and Virtual Labs : http://www.microsoft.com/events/series/technetsqlserver2008.aspx?tab=overview

 .... or better still download the  ... THE SQL SERVER DEVELOPER TRAINING TOOLKIT

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=e9c68e1b-1e0e-4299-b498-6ab3ca72a6d7

... the toolkit takes on the road from being a Type 1 to a Type 2!

Sabot said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

Manip I'm like your Fairy-God-Father today! So I will grant your wish for free SQL Server training !!!!

Lots of webcasts and Virtual Labs : http://www.microsoft.com/events/series/technetsqlserver2008.aspx?tab=overview

 .... or better still download the  ... THE SQL SERVER DEVELOPER TRAINING TOOLKIT

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=e9c68e1b-1e0e-4299-b498-6ab3ca72a6d7

 

... the toolkit takes on the road from being a Type 1 to a Type 2!

Indeed you are sir. Thanks <3

Writing highly efficient T-SQL code in scalable environment, and understanding what goes into type of code, has been one of the bigger challenges that I've enjoyed taking on in my humble developement career.
In many interviews that I've held to hire these type of people, you'd be surprised how few candidates really know their stuff in this regard.

Sabot said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

Manip I'm like your Fairy-God-Father today! So I will grant your wish for free SQL Server training !!!!

Lots of webcasts and Virtual Labs : http://www.microsoft.com/events/series/technetsqlserver2008.aspx?tab=overview

 .... or better still download the  ... THE SQL SERVER DEVELOPER TRAINING TOOLKIT

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=e9c68e1b-1e0e-4299-b498-6ab3ca72a6d7

 

... the toolkit takes on the road from being a Type 1 to a Type 2!

I haven't looked through the training material. However, I find most training docs rather drab.  Have you solved any of Itzik Ben-gan's puzzles? He publishes some good ones! 

I am definitely a type 2 developer, though my current job is more based around WPF and components. We are using WPF for example, but the UI is the basic Aero one, and I don't think that will be changed.

The problem with Linq to SQL and Entity Framework, is that they are just higher abstractions that generate T-SQL anyway. The reason most people struggle with T-SQL is because it is a pure functional language. The forthcoming EF will have a feature that allows you to define a class, and then an option that says "generate database" that creates all the SQL for you. I just don't get why one would want to waste time learning Linq to SQL when you can open up SQL Sever Management Studio and compose you queries and SPROCS there

vesuvius said:

I am definitely a type 2 developer, though my current job is more based around WPF and components. We are using WPF for example, but the UI is the basic Aero one, and I don't think that will be changed.

The problem with Linq to SQL and Entity Framework, is that they are just higher abstractions that generate T-SQL anyway. The reason most people struggle with T-SQL is because it is a pure functional language. The forthcoming EF will have a feature that allows you to define a class, and then an option that says "generate database" that creates all the SQL for you. I just don't get why one would want to waste time learning Linq to SQL when you can open up SQL Sever Management Studio and compose you queries and SPROCS there

The Type 1 developers I have known can do perfectly well with the basic CRUD T-SQL and the basics of aggregating for summary reports.  The stuff we have problems with are complex logic that you wouldn't use an ORM wrapper for anyway: like the calculation and posting of an annual invoice for rental agreements (for each account, find out how much they owe, and how many discounts offers they have allocated but not taken this year, generate the journal postings to the rent ledger, splitting out any separate parts to different nominal codes in the accounting system, reverse calculating and splitting out the VAT components as well and then post to the master-detail ledger tables).

This is complex logic that (in C#) takes several hundred lines of code. A Type 2 developer converted the whole thing to T-SQL (again several hundred lines of code but somewhat fewer than the C#).  Testing was a nightmare (our customers run SQL2000, so we have to run SQL2000 - no step through debugging of stored procs), but the final result is significantly faster. I would have (probably) been able to write a storec proc for this but it would have taken me weeks, instead of days that the Type 2 took.

Herbie

vesuvius said:

I am definitely a type 2 developer, though my current job is more based around WPF and components. We are using WPF for example, but the UI is the basic Aero one, and I don't think that will be changed.

The problem with Linq to SQL and Entity Framework, is that they are just higher abstractions that generate T-SQL anyway. The reason most people struggle with T-SQL is because it is a pure functional language. The forthcoming EF will have a feature that allows you to define a class, and then an option that says "generate database" that creates all the SQL for you. I just don't get why one would want to waste time learning Linq to SQL when you can open up SQL Sever Management Studio and compose you queries and SPROCS there

I agree I stuggled with why you would want to learn LINQ - I don't get it either, is there something I've missed?

The Entity Framework in .Net 4.0 is going to be a design time tool to help with Class and Schema design, so I believe. So it's actually going to be a good thing, however I not sure if it offers anything new we haven't seen before with things like Rational Software Modeller and ORM tools other than being included with Visual Studio and not having to pay extra for it.

However the 'Daddy' is going to be Microsoft Project Oslo in this space .... however it won't be if it costs too much, the best thing to do is bundle it in with Visual Studio Architecture Edition or a value add to an additional product .

Sabot said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

I agree I stuggled with why you would want to learn LINQ - I don't get it either, is there something I've missed?

The Entity Framework in .Net 4.0 is going to be a design time tool to help with Class and Schema design, so I believe. So it's actually going to be a good thing, however I not sure if it offers anything new we haven't seen before with things like Rational Software Modeller and ORM tools other than being included with Visual Studio and not having to pay extra for it.

However the 'Daddy' is going to be Microsoft Project Oslo in this space .... however it won't be if it costs too much, the best thing to do is bundle it in with Visual Studio Architecture Edition or a value add to an additional product .

LINQ to Objects is foresightful if you use PLINQ in .NET 4.0 and beyond to parallelize your LINQ queries across multiple cores on a machine.

Then there's DryadLINQ, which would enable you to distribute your LINQ to Objects queries across multiple machines.

Combining both PLINQ and DryadLINQ would enable developers to parallelize LINQ to Objects queries massively.  (number of cores per PC) x (number of PCs per compute cluster) = profit!

Scientific and other high-performance computing could become .NET's next killer applications.

joechung said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

LINQ to Objects is foresightful if you use PLINQ in .NET 4.0 and beyond to parallelize your LINQ queries across multiple cores on a machine.

Then there's DryadLINQ, which would enable you to distribute your LINQ to Objects queries across multiple machines.

Combining both PLINQ and DryadLINQ would enable developers to parallelize LINQ to Objects queries massively.  (number of cores per PC) x (number of PCs per compute cluster) = profit!

Scientific and other high-performance computing could become .NET's next killer applications.

It is only specific scenarios that will benefit client machines, especially like the ones you have just mentioned, and I don't see Windows 7's main customer base being scientific or high performance gamers. What will my mum use a quad core for? Nothing!

The vast majority of applications don't really need to utilise many-core, but unzipping files, encoding video, heavy mathematical calculations are more the exception than the rule on most machines. With SQL being a more functional language, it stands to reason that parallel database support will benefit client machines so SQL trumps again rather than the meltdown your servers have when a Windows beta or RC is released

Some things of interest -
- LINQ database abstraction and LINQ to SQL compilation with LINQ Pad
- M database abstraction and M to T-SQL compilation with "Oslo"; the ability to define types in terms of constraint expressions
- Knowledge bases and the ability to define abstract properties of relations, like transitivity, symmetry, etc.

Increasing productivity and expressiveness, increasing knowledge fidelity and queryability, like expressing *everything* as structured data, even {U,I}RI addresses, that's what interests me.

http://www.linqpad.net/WhyLINQBeatsSQL.aspx

This is a serious question. If I am writing an application, why exactly would I spend thousands of dollars on a database when there are databases that are free of charge (MySQL, PostgresSQL), and also SQL-99 compliant?

blowdart said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

The vast majority of applications just use SQL as a data store, and only do CRUD.

 

Granted Bazza but doesn't mean it's right!

Information is many an organisations most important asset. What happens to that data and how change happens is becoming of upmost importance to business even in the smallest, most unimportant system because if it's adding value everyday it certainly not something you would want to do without and search for opportunities to greater leverage what you have.

At the very least developers should not only look at good CRUD but how they can plug the database into a company wide SOA and also the BI platform.

Bass said:

This is a serious question. If I am writing an application, why exactly would I spend thousands of dollars on a database when there are databases that are free of charge (MySQL, PostgresSQL), and also SQL-99 compliant?

"This is a serious question. If I am writing an application, why exactly would I spend thousands of dollars on a database when there are databases that are free of charge (MySQL, PostgresSQL), and also SQL-99 compliant?"

One of the serious weaknesses of the Open Source movement was to only recognise the need to reduce CAPEX (Capital Expenditure - tangabile stuff like hardware and software) when OPEX (Operational Expenditure) was the real thing that most businesses spend the most money on ....... by far!

... and Open Source would want you to increase OPEX because you would need to have more and/or a change of skills and then want to give away the fruits of their labour ... and that could benefit a competitor. This doesn't make business sense.

Up until recently MySQL and PostgresSQL haven't been anywhere near as easy to manage or have such vast control as Oracle ... let alone SQL Server where hunderds of databases are managed by only afew people ... and these people get to go home at night.

So look at this from a business context. Would you spend out a little CAPEX (in comparison) in a reduced risk way to bring down OPEX? Or have no CAPEX but increase your OPEX in a way that has risk.

Now do you get why Open Source has to be easy and less risk before the moral high ground not because of it.

And why moan about companies that write close source software they are selling to a vast majority of companies that are just like themselves in business to make money.

vesuvius said:

I am definitely a type 2 developer, though my current job is more based around WPF and components. We are using WPF for example, but the UI is the basic Aero one, and I don't think that will be changed.

The problem with Linq to SQL and Entity Framework, is that they are just higher abstractions that generate T-SQL anyway. The reason most people struggle with T-SQL is because it is a pure functional language. The forthcoming EF will have a feature that allows you to define a class, and then an option that says "generate database" that creates all the SQL for you. I just don't get why one would want to waste time learning Linq to SQL when you can open up SQL Sever Management Studio and compose you queries and SPROCS there

Simply because the LINQ query EDSL gives you a cleaner, more flexible, more composable programming model.

(or: "what exoteric linked")