Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Scott spivonious
  • So is SQL Server 2014 in memory Hekaton gonna crush nosql?

    @bondsbw: lol, I hear you, although I think they finally took away that limit with version 12.

    I will say that I prefer PL/SQL to T-SQL.

  • So is SQL Server 2014 in memory Hekaton gonna crush nosql?


    , RealBboy360 wrote


    Maybe MS Research can come up with a solution for both.  Maybe the save of an object can create new database tables on the fly, with the option of constraints if you want them. I'm not saying it's possible, but I think that sql server 2016 or 18 will try to do something to take back market share.

    Or you could switch to Oracle. They've had ODBMS support for years, it's just that not many people use it.

  • do you think there is any new Lumia model for AT&T?

    @magicalclick: I think the 630 is coming out for AT&T and T-Mobile this Summer. Not the 920 replacement though.

    Couldn't you just buy an unlocked 930 when it comes out and move your SIM over?

  • So is SQL Server 2014 in memory Hekaton gonna crush nosql?

    , bondsbw wrote

    @spivonious:  It all depends on the situation (like I said earlier, not every tool is a hammer because not every fastener is a nail).

    Say you have 500 tables in your DB.  Say one of them is a root table, and the primary purpose of this database is to store some very large and complex set of data that is built off the root.  Say you also need to get that complex set of data back... how is this done for each?

    • In a relational model, this will be a massive and potentially very complex SELECT statement with all kinds of JOIN clauses.
    • In an object model, just ask for the root and you have everything.

    That is just one class of problem.  Relational excels in cases where you need to do reporting on this data.  And frankly, either mechanism will ultimately work because (again as I posted earlier) Relational and NoSQL are duals.

    I'd ask myself if I really needed to retrieve all 500 tables worth of information. ;) But I do understand what you're saying.

  • So is SQL Server 2014 in memory Hekaton gonna crush nosql?

    @figuerres: Yep, nothing is going to fix bad code.

    Am I the only one who finds writing SQL very natural? The relational model makes a lot of sense for most business purposes. I also find that it ties into OOP very readily. Child tables turn into "has-a" relationships. Flags on a table turn into "is-a" relationships.

  • Impressions of Windows 8

    , Jock0 wrote

    @00010101:Not true really.  However, Microsoft is following and not leading anymore.  What they were really were good at...The operating system is now in the back seat.  Apps that we don't need or want are up front.  Things like SEARCH don't work...What a shame indeed.

    Search doesn't work? I love the integrated search introduced with 8.1.

    I do agree that MS needs to stop chasing others and start innovating again, but they need to do some amount of chasing just to catch up and not completely lose the market.

  • So is SQL Server 2014 in memory Hekaton gonna crush nosql?

    , figuerres wrote


    You seem to be assuming worst case, if the server and database are setup halfway right then the tables and indexes will be in memory; a more normal run will have no disk Io. and just some CPU time to make the result set. 

    Agreed. Even if the data is too large to be in memory, you would still have indexes supporting the query stored in one page.

    , bondsbw wrote


    If you have several gigabytes or terabytes of data, then I doubt all of your tables and indexes will be in memory.

    If we're talking about some tiny database, then what's to debate?  Most anything you throw at it will be fast enough.

    Absolutely. The need for NoSQL came about from Google and Facebook handling terabytes of data. But web programmers seem to be jumping all over MongoDB even for tiny datasets. Part of me wants to think that it's because they're too lazy to learn SQL and want to do everything in JS. A good, well-setup RDBMS can be extremely fast and efficient.

  • So is SQL Server 2014 in memory Hekaton gonna crush nosql?

    I have a question for the noSQL guys.

    Let's say I have a standard customer order system. 

    Customer has many Orders

    Order has many Items


    How do I get the number of Hammers ordered? I don't care about any Customer or Order information. In an RDBMS, this is easy - I just query the Items table for hammers.

    In MongoDB, for example, using embedded documents, I'd have to dig my way through the Customer document, Orders collection, Items collection to get at each Item, or I'd use document references, which is just duplicating the relational structure, so I get no benefit (plus no enforcement of foreign keys, so I could add an item that doesn't exist).

    Am I missing something?

  • WP 7.8 - It's here and how to get it

    , magicalclick wrote

    Dude, don't necro the dead thread please.

    I felt it was the proper place to put my message, as I'm sure jinx will want to try this as well.

  • WP 7.8 - It's here and how to get it

    So I was browsing around today and found that if I "debrand" my phone, I get the update notifications. The proxy blocks it here at work, but I'm definitely going to try it when I get home.


    I can't wait to get rid of the stupid disappearing keyboard bug.