Microsoft dyes hair orange to cheer SQL Server 2008 release Microsoft's SQL Server 2008 has finally found its way into the daylight. Redmond said today it has finalized code for the new version of its database software and entered a release to manufacturing phase. SQL Server 2008 was delayed by several months from its intended release date, but Microsoft is still extremely pleased …
"but Microsoft is still extremely pleased about having a new edition out within 24 to 36 months from the release of SQL Server 2005"
Of course it is! When you can charge everyone to purchase upgrades and EOL your previous versions why wouldn't you be thrilled to have a new edition out every 24 to 36 months?
It will make your select statements 5x faster.
Any company whose answer to this "This hits to the very heart of the issue - is optimization allowed to change a program's semantics? Ie: if a program yields certain answers, but runs slowly, is it legitimate for a Query Optimizer make that program run faster, yet also change the results given?" is yes, loses any credibility they once had.
Shocking, just shocking.
https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=350485
Very interesting but a bit misleading. If you use functions like newid() [*] in select statements of any complexity then you can expect some odd behaviour, although I didn't realise to what extent.
Simple fix: don't use non-deterministic expressions in select statements. I never have (and now I never will, thanks to your link).
The problem isn't one of implementation but MS getting sloppy in design. They should never have allowed such 'functions' to be used in such contexts at all until they'd thought it through properly. Any decent mathematician would have pointed out the problems sharpish and warned against it.
That said, the fact that:
"Actually, if you experiment, you can devise others - for example, short-circuit evaluation of AND clauses: make the second clause throw an arithmetic divide-by-zero - different optimizations may execute that second clause BEFORE the first clause"
bloody hell. They never did document whether boolean ops were short-circuit or not (I looked), and it comes out on a blog. Considering the quality of the rest of their documentation, that's an amazing slip.
[*] a rather non-functional function, mathematically speaking, in that it's result aren't guaranteed to be the same each time it's called for the same arguments.
I think it's sloppy. In the connect.microsoft.com link given, they're just like "Well, yeah, NewID etc. won't work, just don't use it with optimization." Documenting this is good, but it'd be much better to have the optimizer be conservative enough to not change semantics by default, and maybe a "dangerous" option that can change semantics. A database first and foremost is supposed to behave predictably.
Critical security and bug fixes aside, the DB makers always tout their latest product is far more optimized than the previous version of 3 years ago. Well of course it bloody well is, 9 times out of 10 the hardware being used to run it has been upgraded during that time! The applications being written have often at least been patched, if not had the SQL recoded to a lesser or greater extent as well.
"why orange ... I don't understand orange... dying your hair is just odd for a software release but why orange... whats the front end / installshield / box colour?
otherwise woohoo... sql..." ..... By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 7th August 2008 08:30 GMT
Maybe IT alludes to dDutch coding, AC. ...... PhreeFormdD XXXXPression? Although 42 See and Access the Kernel to those Controls you'll need to Immerse yourself in a Real dDeep Red Light Shining.
MicroSoft Groomed/Hacked and Leading Underground? Now there's a Novelty which would do IT the World of Good. Very Deft in Deed, indeed. And no, Delft TU will not be able to Presently help you in such Matters...... for they are secured under AIVD Rules and therefore eminently and plausibly deniable.
I tried to upgrade my SQL 2005 installation to 2008 and it resoundingly failed. Reason: I also have Visual Studio 2008 installed, and although this is required by big chunks of SQL 2008 the install fails if your Visual Studio doesn't have SP1 on it... but of course SP1 isn't out yet. And no, it doesn't work with the beta SP1.
SQL2008 = FAIL so far for me then.
SEVEN different versions! That's gonna make it so quick and easy to figure out what version to recommend to clients - not!
We have clients who use SQL server and ask us to write code, fix things etc.
What happens now? Do we have to buy all seven versions for our dev and testing machines to make sure we can work on like for like machines - so that's 14 licenses!!!
So the money people have told the coding people that KISS don't apply.
No wonder we like working with Postgresql.
BTW - we moved an Access DB over to Postgresql ages ago and the Access clients work absolutely fine. Client is pleased because the server has now worked without as much as a reboot for 3-4 years.
@AC
so you mean there are other (presumably open source) databases where you can get deterministic resutls from queries using non-deterministic functions? thats a pretty neat trick..
@kevin bailey
OR you can use the free trial vpc:s of the diffrent versions and do your testing there.. nice and isolated too
@Peter Lee
wow really? that sucks :P i guess that means they better release vs sp1 soon
The Hitch of illusory time, by the major thirds, threw his dying coma he had a Sens-OMatic became extremely odd.
Why Presidents to move faster. Ford and Zaphod and Many people the aircar, - You and prepare for a degree in our guests here we weren't actually deposited them be going to himself, - he explained. Chapter 1 for God's sake?
I reckon one should be able to buy the thing by the dll.
MS press release: "Our marketing dept decided that we really had to taylor our offer to customers' usage.The offer was a bit coarse before, but now we can reallly say we cater exactly to our customers' needs."
Oh I know, dll is a bit drude still, by the dll API maybe?
Mine is the one with "death to bad marketing" written on the back.
OK.
We have a client with 2GB sized databases - dual xeon system. Lots of precessing of data generated from telecoms kit.
Now, tell me, which version of SQL Server should we recommend.
Boom! Postgresql - I've finished.
Let me know how long it takes you to figure out which SQL server version.
What? You need more information? Of course you do. Well the contact is..... blah blah blah.... Yawn...
why is it such a problem for people that there are diffrent versions of sql server/windows server?
i mean how many linux distros are out there seriously? choosing between them doesnt seem to be a problem although that is much more difficult since the all come from diffrent vedors and ther is no complete comparison of their features..
we use both lamp and wisp so i dont consider myself biased either way, just giving my 02..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
