So, I have not yet been exposed to SISS in SQL Server 2005, but I am maintaining a few DBs that are SQL Server 2000 that had a lot of DTS packages. At one point, I re-wrote most of them to be straight stored procedures. I find this to be a lot easier to maintain and a lot easier to actual work with. What tasks and added power to DTS and/or SISS have that you cannot do in straight stored procedures? In other words, what features/benifits am I missing out on?
Thanks, Ken On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Aaron Rouse <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
