We typically used DTS to migrate data between database servers that could not talk directly to one another and quite often one of those databases would not be SQL Server. Part of the migration would be some form of data manipulation but not always. Really simple stuff and was really easy to get done in DTS and still faily easy with SISS when going between two SQL Servers. When I first got here they used DTS a lot, I believe with a ton of VB code and who knows what else, that was all in a data warehouse that I had nothing to do but shared an office with one of their programmers so heard a lot about it. I have used DTS for quick and dirty imports of data in the past, it is unbelievably simple to do and nice when you can just get something like an Excel file into Oracle with very little invested time or effort and with a pre-existing(on the machine) tool.
Now days the only thing I have to use SISS for is to migrate data from our staging server to the production. Which could be done with an SP if the users were allowed the proper permissions. I doubt any DTS packages I have written in the past are still online here, most everything has been migrated to Oracle or retired. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Ken Auenson, II <[email protected]>wrote: > 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/ >>> >>> >>> > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
