Michael Rys - XML in SQL Server | scobleizer

B®
I vote for managed code!

Hey cool stuff!

I won't write more.. I'll start my virtual pc right away and start playing around =)

erik_
Tablet Power

Hmm, I quickly skipped to the demo, because I don't got time atm to view the full video. They learn me at school to normalize everything, and with this xml insert this isn't happening or ?... should I just watch the full video tommorow?

TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

erik_ wrote:
Hmm, I quickly skipped to the demo, because I don't got time atm to view the full video. They learn me at school to normalize everything, and with this xml insert this isn't happening or ?... should I just watch the full video tommorow?

I often watch the C9 videos at double speed: everything is still understandable, the demos look just as good, and you only spend half of the usual time watching.

chrisgrainger

What about the sound, can you hear it at all or is it sped up?

I personally like the fully enjoy the Channel 9 videos and usually sit down at the end of a hard day and watch them. I always make time! Smiley

TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

The sound is sped up, but it's still all understandable. It doesn't sound as if they used Helium Wink

And hearing Scoble laugh at double speed is just as enjoyable as normal speed.

Johannes
Johannes Hansen, Denmark

I really don't get the advantage of the XML column over regular relational data even though I've been to numerous events explaining the topic of XML in SQL Server 2K5. Nobody has ever presented a specific usecase for this column type that just makes me go "ahhh yes! that's cool!!!". In the cases I've heard I always have a feeling that it would be more valuable to transform the data into relational data. Am I the only one?

ernestofreyre
Ernesto

Rys, i have one small example for you, supouse you have some data you will keep in a relational database, you must know a priori, all kinds of data types, leaving no space for auto-extensibility, so with a XML type column you could define customized data types acordingly to the applications and have infinite numbers of data structures within a single "static" relational database model.

I have been using this kind of solutions for a while with great results, and i always had to use a text or ntext column type for storing the XML data, parsing it after, but if SQL 2K5 comes with it, even better.

shaju

This was very useful and interesting video.

Thanks Michael Rys.

Cheers!!!!

Piotrek

Johannes wrote:
I really don't get the advantage of the XML column over regular relational data even though I've been to numerous events explaining the topic of XML in SQL Server 2K5. Nobody has ever presented a specific usecase for this column type that just makes me go "ahhh yes! that's cool!!!". In the cases I've heard I always have a feeling that it would be more valuable to transform the data into relational data. Am I the only one?

You're not

Of course it looks intresting for a all-XML-data supply chain, for improved security, for interroperability between XML able products. But no "ahhh yes! that's cool!!!" that gives you the power to code in the night.

I'm waiting the results of the http://www.csdevcompetition.com/ contest...