SQL Server Forums
Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | Forum FAQ
 
Register Now and get your question answered!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Site Related Forums
 The Yak Corral
 Katmai
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

spirit1
Cybernetic Yak Master

Slovenia
11751 Posts

Posted - 03/28/2007 :  10:27:25  Show Profile  Visit spirit1's Homepage  Reply with Quote
i know. i've used it too
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/mladenp/archive/2006/12/28/55599.aspx

since then i've done tons of stuff in my free time.

_______________________________________________
Causing trouble since 1980
blog: http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/mladenp
Go to Top of Page

euan_garden
Microsoft SQL Server Product Team

34 Posts

Posted - 04/02/2007 :  23:53:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
SQL Express exists because it is the natural successor to MSDE which was first released in 1999, long before most people could even spell MySQL. The feature set was tweaked to reflect user feedback(we hate the governor) and industry trends(more data so a bigger DB limit was needed) and competitive trends.

-Euan
quote:
Originally posted by jezemine

quote:
Originally posted by spirit1
MS can't be really concerned about competition, can it?



what makes you think sql server isn't concerned about competition? they are very much tuned in.

why do you think sql express exists, with a free gui to boot? one reason: mysql

there are plenty of other examples of katmai features that exist only because the competition has them, but I can't tell about those. you know, nda stuff.


www.elsasoft.org

Go to Top of Page

pootle_flump
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge

United Kingdom
1064 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  04:52:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Peso

One of the things I want most for next service pack for SQL Server is:

SUM(i) OVER (PARTITION BY Col1 ORDER BY Col2)

Not just SUM, but any aggregate function.


Peter Larsson
Helsingborg, Sweden

Peter

you are probably more familiar with this article than I am however in case you (or others) aren't:
http://www.sqlmag.com/Article/ArticleID/95007/sql_server_95007.html
Go to Top of Page

SwePeso
Patron Saint of Lost Yaks

Sweden
30276 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  05:03:58  Show Profile  Visit SwePeso's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Great article!

But "TOP n WITHIN GROUP" or "TOP OVER" can now be solved with this in SQL Server 2005
SELECT		[Type],
		Number,
		RecID
FROM		(
			SELECT	[Type],
				Number,
				ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY [TYPE] ORDER BY Number) AS RecID
			FROM	master..spt_values
		) AS x
WHERE		RecID IN (1, 2)
ORDER BY	[Type],
		Number

Peter Larsson
Helsingborg, Sweden

Edited by - SwePeso on 04/03/2007 05:04:32
Go to Top of Page

SwePeso
Patron Saint of Lost Yaks

Sweden
30276 Posts

Posted - 04/11/2007 :  04:14:41  Show Profile  Visit SwePeso's Homepage  Reply with Quote
New version in 2008?

quote:
Bob muglia told at the keynote here at MMS that the next version of SQL server will be released in 2008. Given the Microsoft product lifecycle announcements (major release, minor release) I assume this will be a R2 release of SQL and so SQL 2005 R2.



Peter Larsson
Helsingborg, Sweden
Go to Top of Page

graz
Chief SQLTeam Crack Dealer

USA
4137 Posts

Posted - 04/11/2007 :  09:18:20  Show Profile  Visit graz's Homepage  Reply with Quote
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=379

===============================================
Creating tomorrow's legacy systems today.
One crisis at a time.
Go to Top of Page

jezemine
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge

USA
2886 Posts

Posted - 04/11/2007 :  09:46:58  Show Profile  Visit jezemine's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Peso

New version in 2008?

quote:
Bob muglia told at the keynote here at MMS that the next version of SQL server will be released in 2008. Given the Microsoft product lifecycle announcements (major release, minor release) I assume this will be a R2 release of SQL and so SQL 2005 R2.



Peter Larsson
Helsingborg, Sweden



I wouldn't bank on it. Yukon was supposed to be a 2 year release originally. it ended up being 5.


www.elsasoft.org
Go to Top of Page

Kristen
Test

United Kingdom
22415 Posts

Posted - 04/11/2007 :  13:52:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Yukon was supposed to be a 2 year release originally. it ended up being 5."

But that probably annoyed some folk on Software Assurance ... so maybe loads of incremental releases are more Commercially Correct? ... I hope not though ...
Go to Top of Page

euan_garden
Microsoft SQL Server Product Team

34 Posts

Posted - 04/15/2007 :  02:00:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yukon was never a 2 yr release, but agreed it was never supposed to be a 5 yr. Take a look at some of the presentations done on the new engineering system designed to address shipping predictability that the team is using. Katmai is not going to be a 5 yr release, also not all MS products are going the R2 route so don't assume thats whats coming

quote:
Originally posted by Kristen

"Yukon was supposed to be a 2 year release originally. it ended up being 5."

But that probably annoyed some folk on Software Assurance ... so maybe loads of incremental releases are more Commercially Correct? ... I hope not though ...

Go to Top of Page

X002548
Not Just a Number

15586 Posts

Posted - 04/15/2007 :  11:36:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by euan_garden

Yukon was never a 2 yr release, but agreed it was never supposed to be a 5 yr. Take a look at some of the presentations done on the new engineering system designed to address shipping predictability that the team is using. Katmai is not going to be a 5 yr release, also not all MS products are going the R2 route so don't assume thats whats coming

quote:
Originally posted by Kristen

"Yukon was supposed to be a 2 year release originally. it ended up being 5."

But that probably annoyed some folk on Software Assurance ... so maybe loads of incremental releases are more Commercially Correct? ... I hope not though ...





And all of that means?



Brett

8-)

Hint: Want your questions answered fast? Follow the direction in this link
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/brettk/archive/2005/05/25/5276.aspx

Add yourself!
http://www.frappr.com/sqlteam



Go to Top of Page

spirit1
Cybernetic Yak Master

Slovenia
11751 Posts

Posted - 04/15/2007 :  12:00:59  Show Profile  Visit spirit1's Homepage  Reply with Quote
i still think that a major release of sql server should be 4-5 years appart.

_______________________________________________
Causing trouble since 1980
blog: http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/mladenp
Go to Top of Page

Kristen
Test

United Kingdom
22415 Posts

Posted - 04/16/2007 :  08:39:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"And all of that means?"

My understanding is:

The ability to Upgrade from "Product A Version N" to ""Product A Version N+1" has been replaced with either a) Software Assurance or b) Purchase a-new.

So you pay your Software Assurance like a good boy, and then 5 years later a new product comes out .... that has annoyed some folk. I think the intention of Software Assurance was that you would, in effect, be buying an "upgrade" every couple of years, which made the price seem reasonable [i.e. about the same as the old upgrade route] but paying each year, rather than once-in-a-while, made it easier for people to budget for, and probably also ensured a faster uptake of new versions.


i.e. it did away with this conversation with the Accounts department! :

"Can I have the new version please?"

"I'll put it in the budget for next year / the year after next / ..."

Kristen
Go to Top of Page

coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior

United Kingdom
841 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  12:04:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by spirit1

i still think that a major release of sql server should be 4-5 years appart.



I agree, you end up feeling like you are chasing a moving target when trying to answer the question: "What can SQL Server do?" The answer is getting longer. I'm fine with the product getting bigger. But not every 2 or 3 years. It's too unsettling.
Go to Top of Page

Kristen
Test

United Kingdom
22415 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  03:04:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
+1

... No no no, I don't mean I want SQL 2007, SQL 2008 .... Blast, perhaps I meant +5 ?!
Go to Top of Page

nr
SQLTeam MVY

United Kingdom
12543 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  06:04:07  Show Profile  Visit nr's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Where does 2008 come from?
Has there been an announcement about it?

==========================================
Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.
DTS can be used in a similar way.
Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy.
Go to Top of Page

jezemine
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge

USA
2886 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  09:15:39  Show Profile  Visit jezemine's Homepage  Reply with Quote
there was this recent press release:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/may07/05-09KatmaiPR.mspx


www.elsasoft.org
Go to Top of Page

nr
SQLTeam MVY

United Kingdom
12543 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  10:29:56  Show Profile  Visit nr's Homepage  Reply with Quote
>> Scheduled to be available in 2008
Interesting.
One of the windows (I think) releases they said was released on time because they had the press launch. It wasn't available to buy until later though.

==========================================
Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.
DTS can be used in a similar way.
Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
SQL Server Forums © 2000-2009 SQLTeam Publishing, LLC Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.89 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000