July 1, 2011 at 11:04 pm
@opc.three
thanks and I appreciate
Oh for crying out loud
mentally disorder
Yes I absolutely did read the entire paragraph. Are you telling me that when DBAs write scripts they are not developing those scripts? What are they doing then? Administering the scripts? Conjuring them from thin air?
what do you understand by DEVELOPMENT WORK mentioned by microsoft ? How much time you spent on the script to rewrite in a ? 1 day or 1 hour ?
That view WILL go away in a future version, maybe even the next one. There are replacements for it that view that are fully documented, much better laid out, much clearer column names and those have been around since SQL 2005. There is no reason to be using views that are only included so that code written for SQL 2000 won't break
Do you have specific release information which one this will be completely remove ?
Admins need to be familiar with the new DMV and need to note the deprecation so that when MS does remove those old views (and they will) the admins won't be left with all of their admin script breaking
I agreed 'Need to familiar' ,there are several objects which one microsoft mentioned it will be remove or deprecate but still comming with the new release,I think you poeple living with 'I and Me' and cant afford if someone else providing the solution.You poeple have non professional behavoir and attitude,why do you poeple not work on your way ?
Regards,
Syed Jahanzaib Bin Hassan
BSCS | MCTS | MCITP | OCA | OCP | OCE | SCJP | IBMCDBA
My Blog
www.aureus-salah.com
July 2, 2011 at 12:30 am
Syed Jahanzaib Bin hassan (7/1/2011)
@opc.threethanks and I appreciate
Oh for crying out loud
mentally disorder
Yes I absolutely did read the entire paragraph. Are you telling me that when DBAs write scripts they are not developing those scripts? What are they doing then? Administering the scripts? Conjuring them from thin air?
what do you understand by DEVELOPMENT WORK mentioned by microsoft ? How much time you spent on the script to rewrite in a ? 1 day or 1 hour ?
That view WILL go away in a future version, maybe even the next one. There are replacements for it that view that are fully documented, much better laid out, much clearer column names and those have been around since SQL 2005. There is no reason to be using views that are only included so that code written for SQL 2000 won't break
Do you have specific release information which one this will be completely remove ?
Admins need to be familiar with the new DMV and need to note the deprecation so that when MS does remove those old views (and they will) the admins won't be left with all of their admin script breaking
I agreed 'Need to familiar' ,there are several objects which one microsoft mentioned it will be remove or deprecate but still comming with the new release,I think you poeple living with 'I and Me' and cant afford if someone else providing the solution.You poeple have non professional behavoir and attitude,why do you poeple not work on your way ?
As far as when the compatibility views will go away, Microsoft doesn't always tell you. I haven't load Denali, so I can't say if they exist there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the go away when Denali is officially released as I would not be surprised as well if the only previous versions of SQL Server that Denali supports is 2005/2008.
I also have to disagree with you when you call others that have pointed out to you that you are recommending the use of depreciated features to people asking for assistance. They are trying to make sure you and others understand that you should be using the DMV's that were introduced with SQL Server 2005 and that they actually provide more information that may be quite useful and beneficial.
July 2, 2011 at 6:39 am
Lynn Pettis (7/2/2011)
As far as when the compatibility views will go away, Microsoft doesn't always tell you. I haven't load Denali, so I can't say if they exist there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the go away when Denali is officially released as I would not be surprised as well if the only previous versions of SQL Server that Denali supports is 2005/2008.
I have read that Microsoft is only in the habit of supporting the previous 2 versions in terms of compat mode. Denali is in keeping with this idea as 80 compat mode is dropped with Denali (thank goodness, *= & =* finally goes away :-)) That said, I am not sure if that speaks towards the old system views however we all agree they should be phased out in new development (& scripting) <edit>where possible</edit>.
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
--Plato
July 2, 2011 at 8:37 am
Edited out.
July 2, 2011 at 8:59 am
Ninja's_RGR'us (7/2/2011)
Let's make it 6 out of 8.Censored.
Could be me, but I think this was a bit too much. We really should not attach the messenger but the message.
July 2, 2011 at 9:23 am
Lynn Pettis (7/2/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (7/2/2011)
Let's make it 6 out of 8.Censored.
Could be me, but I think this was a bit too much. We really should not attach the messenger but the message.
The problem here is that the postman and the post creator are the same and they never seem to get it.
July 2, 2011 at 10:02 am
Ninja's_RGR'us (7/2/2011)
Lynn Pettis (7/2/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (7/2/2011)
Let's make it 6 out of 8.Censored.
Could be me, but I think this was a bit too much. We really should not attach the messenger but the message.
The problem here is that the postman and the post creator are the same and they never seem to get it.
This may be true, but we really should be sure that we maintain our professionalism in the light of others that don't.
Sometimes a difficult thing to do.
July 2, 2011 at 10:23 am
Syed Jahanzaib Bin hassan (7/1/2011)
I think you poeple living with 'I and Me' and cant afford if someone else providing the solution.You poeple have non professional behavoir and attitude,why do you poeple not work on your way ?
It's most ironic that you've taken the very same position which you are complaining the most about. 😉
--Jeff Moden
July 2, 2011 at 10:31 am
Ninja's_RGR'us (7/2/2011)
Lynn Pettis (7/2/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (7/2/2011)
Let's make it 6 out of 8.Censored.
Could be me, but I think this was a bit too much. We really should not attach the messenger but the message.
The problem here is that the postman and the post creator are the same and they never seem to get it.
Absolutely agreed but don't let someone drag you down to the same street-level, ad hominem attacks they may be making, Remi. As frustrating as threads like this may be, I'm glad you removed the post because I know you're better than that. 🙂
--Jeff Moden
July 2, 2011 at 10:43 am
opc.three (7/2/2011)
@Syed, you're welcome for the link. The people on this thread are continuing to quote and correct your posts because you are either spreading poor advice, misinformation or are not consistent with the SQL Server documentation and generally accepted best practices. Consider that this site is crawled by Google in near real time. When people are seeking information about SQL Server this site is often near the top of the results list, therefore it is important that the information on it is up to date, as comprehensive as is reasonable in a forum setting and accurate. The reason why you're constantly being corrected is because the people doing it care whether or not people cruising by the site looking for help are mislead into using old views, shortcuts, or are given any other poor information or advice. Please consider this when posting in the future, and when responding to a correction or a criticism by others. It takes helping a lot of people to get to 25,000 points...and it's not an accident that folks with high point totals are the ones always correcting you, or that the same folks are correcting you. On this thread alone you have 5 of the top 8 all time point getters on this site. Please take the time to listen to what they are telling you.
7. 🙂
Very well stated and spot on, Orlando.
--Jeff Moden
July 2, 2011 at 2:09 pm
opc.three (7/2/2011)
Lynn Pettis (7/2/2011)
As far as when the compatibility views will go away, Microsoft doesn't always tell you. I haven't load Denali, so I can't say if they exist there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the go away when Denali is officially released as I would not be surprised as well if the only previous versions of SQL Server that Denali supports is 2005/2008.I have read that Microsoft is only in the habit of supporting the previous 2 versions in terms of compat mode. Denali is in keeping with this idea as 80 compat mode is dropped with Denali (thank goodness, *= & =* finally goes away :-)) That said, I am not sure if that speaks towards the old system views however we all agree they should be phased out in new development (& scripting) <edit>where possible</edit>.
So, I just got around to loading the Denali CTP and it does have the option to create a DB in 80 compat mode, however even with a database in 80 mode it does not support the =* or *= join operators.
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
--Plato
July 3, 2011 at 5:56 am
opc.three (7/2/2011)
opc.three (7/2/2011)
Lynn Pettis (7/2/2011)
As far as when the compatibility views will go away, Microsoft doesn't always tell you. I haven't load Denali, so I can't say if they exist there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the go away when Denali is officially released as I would not be surprised as well if the only previous versions of SQL Server that Denali supports is 2005/2008.I have read that Microsoft is only in the habit of supporting the previous 2 versions in terms of compat mode. Denali is in keeping with this idea as 80 compat mode is dropped with Denali (thank goodness, *= & =* finally goes away :-)) That said, I am not sure if that speaks towards the old system views however we all agree they should be phased out in new development (& scripting) <edit>where possible</edit>.
So, I just got around to loading the Denali CTP and it does have the option to create a DB in 80 compat mode, however even with a database in 80 mode it does not support the =* or *= join operators.
Don't forget that any functionality you see in the CTP is subject to change. It's why those things are so hard to work with.
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
July 3, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Saying that "writing a query for an admin task is not the same as development work" would be like saying that "fire is not the same as hot stuff". If we tell you to keep a can of gas away from hot stuff, are you going to set it next to the fire and claim that we didn't say fire?
July 3, 2011 at 11:20 pm
It's most ironic that you've taken the very same position which you are complaining the most about
another non professional person :w00t:,I didnt say anything about anyone solution here because every one have it own point of views
Absolutely agreed but don't let someone drag you down to the same street-level
you can teach english literature very well :hehe:
Very well stated and spot on, Orlando.
now you have increased 3 points with your STATED,AGREED,do you have solution or not,now I understand it, you have increased your points in the same way like STATED,Agreed 😀
@opc.three
thanks for the advice
Regards,
Syed Jahanzaib Bin Hassan
BSCS | MCTS | MCITP | OCA | OCP | OCE | SCJP | IBMCDBA
My Blog
www.aureus-salah.com
July 4, 2011 at 1:28 am
It's most ironic that you've taken the very same position which you are complaining the most about
another non professional person ,I didnt say anything about anyone solution here because every one have it own point of views
Interesting that you found this simple statement to be unprofessional. Jeff was simply stating that he found your taking same position you were complaining about as ironic. To use another phrase, it's the pot calling the kettle black.
Again, all we are stating is that the advice you provided was wrong. Your code used depreciated features that may not work in future versions of SQL Server.
Here is some advice, start learning more about one SQL Server. Take the code you suggested in this thread and figure out how you would do the same thing using the DMVs in SQL Server 2005/2008. Start updating your skills to newer version.
I hate to say this, but all those certifications won't mean a thing if no one can trust the advice you provide. What is more important to you the certifications or giving good and accurate advice?
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply