| Author |
 Topic  |
|
spirit1
Cybernetic Yak Master
Slovenia
11741 Posts |
|
|
euan_garden
Microsoft SQL Server Product Team
34 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2007 : 23:53:15
|
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
|
 |
|
|
pootle_flump
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge
United Kingdom
1064 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 04:52:29
|
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 |
|
|
|
SwePeso
Patron Saint of Lost Yaks
Sweden
29138 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 05:03:58
|
Great article!
But "TOP n WITHIN GROUP" or "TOP OVER" can now be solved with this in SQL Server 2005SELECT [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 |
|
|
|
SwePeso
Patron Saint of Lost Yaks
Sweden
29138 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 04:14:41
|
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 |
|
|
|
graz
Chief SQLTeam Crack Dealer
USA
4128 Posts |
|
|
jezemine
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge
USA
2871 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 09:46:58
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
United Kingdom
22191 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 13:52:18
|
"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 ... |
|
|
|
euan_garden
Microsoft SQL Server Product Team
34 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2007 : 02:00:44
|
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 ...
|
|
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2007 : 11:36:08
|
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
|
|
|
|
spirit1
Cybernetic Yak Master
Slovenia
11741 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2007 : 12:00:59
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
United Kingdom
22191 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2007 : 08:39:11
|
"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 |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
United Kingdom
841 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:04:05
|
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. |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
United Kingdom
22191 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 03:04:55
|
+1
... No no no, I don't mean I want SQL 2007, SQL 2008 .... Blast, perhaps I meant +5 ?! |
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
United Kingdom
12543 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 06:04:07
|
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. |
|
|
|
jezemine
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge
USA
2871 Posts |
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
United Kingdom
12543 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 10:29:56
|
>> 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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Katmai
