Agreed, and the removal of outer join shorthand in 2005 sure doesn't make SQL writing less cumbersome easy. They even make ASP programming more cumbersome with every new incarnation. It reminds me of game design when someone will add more power to their physics and graphics engine and vastly more buttons and more complicated moves to a game that is nothing more than glorified pong. Convolution is Microsoft's fighting song these days.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aaron Rouse Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 9:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [houcfug] Re: Help with an issue I am talking about the cost of the software itself not the people who manage it. We pay the same amount of money for either and actually the same people administer both flavors is why. Yes SISS is much more powerful but for those of us who do not need the added power it actually made certain tasks more cumbersome to do if using SISS instead of DTS. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Robert L. Stewart <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Cost of ownership and cost of both development DBAs (which I am) and production DBAs is a lot lower with SQL Server than Oracle. Oracle DBAs tend to specialize in certain things about the role. Because of the size and complexity of it, it is pretty much impossible to do everything in it well as a DBA. All of the Oracle "development" DBAs that I have dealt with have been very competent with writing SQL statements, again I think it is the specialization thing. The change done to DTS to make it SSIS was generally to put it into competition with Informatica. For those of you that have not seen it, it is a lot like the SSIS interface. SSIS is also much more powerful than DTS ever was. Also, if you write the T-SQL correctly, it can be extremely versatile for the GUI/Business layer programmer to use. For example, the update can be written so that not all the fields need to be passed in, but the ones that are passed in will be updated. For example: UPDATE dbo.tbl_HSE_Causes SET [HSEC_HAZOP_ID] = CASE WHEN @HSEC_HAZOP_ID IS NULL THEN [HSEC_HAZOP_ID] ELSE @HSEC_HAZOP_ID END, [HSEC_No] = CASE WHEN @HSEC_No IS NULL THEN [HSEC_No] ELSE @HSEC_No END, [HSEC_Project_ID] = CASE WHEN @HSEC_Project_ID IS NULL THEN [HSEC_Project_ID] ELSE @HSEC_Project_ID END, [HSEC_Description] = CASE WHEN @HSEC_Description IS NULL THEN [HSEC_Description] ELSE @HSEC_Description END WHERE HSEC_ID = @HSEC_ID All of the parameters are optional except the HSEC_ID in the example. I would be interested in reading that article. It seems that they should be optimizing the dynamic stuff more because of LINQ. So maybe they have in 2008. But, I do not know many people that are using it yet. SPs definitely faster in 2000 and 2005 that dynamic. At 02:32 AM 12/17/2008, you wrote: >Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 7:24 pm >From: "Aaron Rouse" > > >Yeah just a shame that the price tag on Oracle and CF Enterprise(if you want >out of the box datadirect drivers) is rather steep for some. We are being >pushed slowly towards SQL Server because MS gave a bunch of licenses for it >and makes the cost of Oracle all the sudden seem like a huge waste of money >to the higher ups. Have to love MS's approach, make the first uses free >then once they are sunk in charge them a lot. Robert Stewart ProjecTools.com 713-371-9840 X1305 -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Houston ColdFusion Users' Group" discussion list. To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/houcfug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
