January 29, 2015 at 7:28 am
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Ed Wagner (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
That what will soon be illegal in SQL? (You have an unclear antecedent for the second "that" in your edited comment.)The omission of the WITH on the nolock hint. Might be others, but that's the one I know about. Been deprecated for a while.
So will the omission of the semicolon at the end of a statement. I noticed that the SET statement above doesn't have one. I have a feeling that this one will impact a lot of people.
I suspect that the missing WITH will break long before ; is required everywhere.
Probably true. If the requirement of the WITH has been deprecated for a while, they'll implement it before the ; requirement. I think the ; requirement was introduced in SQL 2014, so we should have at least 2 major versions before implementation.
January 29, 2015 at 7:39 am
It's not just posted questions, as I found out yesterday. Questions around the water cooler (not this one) are also getting ... awkward.
Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?
If so, do you notice any issues between the two?
January 29, 2015 at 7:43 am
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?
That's kinda dumb. Instead of Standard they could use Developer edition, save on cost and get all the enterprise features in Dev/Test
The one I hate seeing is Developer edition for dev/test and Standard in prod. Good way to have random deployment failures....
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 29, 2015 at 7:47 am
SQLRNNR (1/29/2015)
Ed Wagner (1/29/2015)
spaghettidba (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
That what will soon be illegal in SQL? (You have an unclear antecedent for the second "that" in your edited comment.)The omission of the WITH on the nolock hint. Might be others, but that's the one I know about. Been deprecated for a while.
I have also seen code like this:
SELECT *
FROM SomeTable NOLOCK
The developer was complaining that the NOLOCK hint didn't work...
Sure it did. It was used as an alias for SomeTable - exactly as it was written. 😛
Great idea. let them use NOLOCK, but just teach them to use it as a hint instead. This could be awesome. :w00t:
You evil overlord! :hehe:
-- Gianluca Sartori
January 29, 2015 at 7:50 am
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?That's kinda dumb. Instead of Standard they could use Developer edition, save on cost and get all the enterprise features in Dev/Test
The one I hate seeing is Developer edition for dev/test and Standard in prod. Good way to have random deployment failures....
It's all about controlling costs. Is it legal to have Dev edition on the dev and test servers, accessed by multiple people?
Now that I think about it, Dev edition should be cheaper, unless Dev edition charges per socket / cpu or only allows single user / client CALs.
January 29, 2015 at 7:53 am
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?That's kinda dumb. Instead of Standard they could use Developer edition, save on cost and get all the enterprise features in Dev/Test
The one I hate seeing is Developer edition for dev/test and Standard in prod. Good way to have random deployment failures....
It's all about controlling costs. Is it legal to have Dev edition on the dev and test servers, accessed by multiple people?
As long as it's used for non-production only and everyone who accesses it has a license (it's licensed per user)
Still, at around $50 per license (or included with MSDN), you're going to need a hell of a lot of users before you beat a core-licensed Standard edition in price.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 29, 2015 at 7:56 am
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
It's not just posted questions, as I found out yesterday. Questions around the water cooler (not this one) are also getting ... awkward.Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?
If so, do you notice any issues between the two?
I have it where I work now. Was in place before I was hired. I guess better to have Standard in Dev and enterprise in prod than the other way around since you aren't using features in dev that aren't available in prod.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
January 29, 2015 at 8:01 am
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?That's kinda dumb. Instead of Standard they could use Developer edition, save on cost and get all the enterprise features in Dev/Test
The one I hate seeing is Developer edition for dev/test and Standard in prod. Good way to have random deployment failures....
It's all about controlling costs. Is it legal to have Dev edition on the dev and test servers, accessed by multiple people?
As long as it's used for non-production only and everyone who accesses it has a license (it's licensed per user)
Still, at around $50 per license (or included with MSDN), you're going to need a hell of a lot of users before you beat a core-licensed Standard edition in price.
+1000.
For us, it's about $35USD per seat through our Value Added Partner.
--Jeff Moden
January 29, 2015 at 8:38 am
Jeff Moden (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?That's kinda dumb. Instead of Standard they could use Developer edition, save on cost and get all the enterprise features in Dev/Test
The one I hate seeing is Developer edition for dev/test and Standard in prod. Good way to have random deployment failures....
It's all about controlling costs. Is it legal to have Dev edition on the dev and test servers, accessed by multiple people?
As long as it's used for non-production only and everyone who accesses it has a license (it's licensed per user)
Still, at around $50 per license (or included with MSDN), you're going to need a hell of a lot of users before you beat a core-licensed Standard edition in price.
+1000.
For us, it's about $35USD per seat through our Value Added Partner.
That sounds like a serious savings. And there's no issue with service packs and hot fixes? Meaning, we can still apply them like we do to Enterprise without errors, right?
January 29, 2015 at 8:52 am
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
Jeff Moden (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?That's kinda dumb. Instead of Standard they could use Developer edition, save on cost and get all the enterprise features in Dev/Test
The one I hate seeing is Developer edition for dev/test and Standard in prod. Good way to have random deployment failures....
It's all about controlling costs. Is it legal to have Dev edition on the dev and test servers, accessed by multiple people?
As long as it's used for non-production only and everyone who accesses it has a license (it's licensed per user)
Still, at around $50 per license (or included with MSDN), you're going to need a hell of a lot of users before you beat a core-licensed Standard edition in price.
+1000.
For us, it's about $35USD per seat through our Value Added Partner.
That sounds like a serious savings. And there's no issue with service packs and hot fixes? Meaning, we can still apply them like we do to Enterprise without errors, right?
Like you apply service packs to Enterprise or Standard or Web or Express or ...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 29, 2015 at 8:52 am
Just found a surprising test result. Well surprising to me at least.
Testing on an Azure DS-series "Premium iops" machine. All SSD drives. SQL Server 2014.
Index rebuild of 1 million records, faster with SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON
Index rebuild of 100 million records, slower with SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON
And slower by an hour than with SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF
The 1 million record run is faster by 45 minutes.
I'm testing now with Buffer Pool Extensions on.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
January 29, 2015 at 9:05 am
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
Here's one for everyone. Does anyone have an environment where Enterprise is the production edition and Standard is the Dev / Test version?he one I hate seeing is Developer edition for dev/test and Standard in prod. Good way to have random deployment failures....
Luckily we have standard in test too 🙂
We have not seen any deployment issues yet. Fingers crossed.
We even have 2008 developer edition in dev and 2012 in test/production.
January 29, 2015 at 9:10 am
spaghettidba (1/29/2015)
SQLRNNR (1/29/2015)
Ed Wagner (1/29/2015)
spaghettidba (1/29/2015)
GilaMonster (1/29/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (1/29/2015)
That what will soon be illegal in SQL? (You have an unclear antecedent for the second "that" in your edited comment.)The omission of the WITH on the nolock hint. Might be others, but that's the one I know about. Been deprecated for a while.
I have also seen code like this:
SELECT *
FROM SomeTable NOLOCK
The developer was complaining that the NOLOCK hint didn't work...
Sure it did. It was used as an alias for SomeTable - exactly as it was written. 😛
Great idea. let them use NOLOCK, but just teach them to use it as a hint instead. This could be awesome. :w00t:
You evil overlord! :hehe:
erm - too early in the morning. I meant to say alias and not hint.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
January 29, 2015 at 9:13 am
SQLRNNR (1/29/2015)
erm - too early in the morning. I meant to say alias and not hint.
No worries, it was clear enough 😉
-- Gianluca Sartori
January 29, 2015 at 9:16 am
spaghettidba (1/29/2015)
SQLRNNR (1/29/2015)
erm - too early in the morning. I meant to say alias and not hint.No worries, it was clear enough 😉
Clear as mud! @=)
Viewing 15 posts - 47,206 through 47,220 (of 66,000 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply