September 22, 2010 at 12:08 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item What Do We Need in SQL Server?
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
September 22, 2010 at 2:02 am
need to fix this bug..
http://qa.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic980983-391-2.aspx#bm981475
----------
Ashish
September 22, 2010 at 3:26 am
We have a CTE - I wish that we would have a calculated field expressions (defined once, used multiple times).
Regards from DownUnder
September 22, 2010 at 6:16 am
An option to have the AdventureWorks database included with the SQL Server installation would be helpful. Right now adding it afterwards is a bit cumbersome - at least for me.
September 22, 2010 at 6:42 am
Source control integration with various source control systems like Team Foundation directly from SSMS.
September 22, 2010 at 7:00 am
The biggest thing I would like to see in coming versions of SQL Server is something that goes completely against the grain when dealing with Microsoft. Simplicity.
The most vocal complaint I hear about Microsoft these days, from old and existing clients, from developers, and from users is that Microsoft seems to love complexity - they cant do anything simply. They keep adding elaborate features to all their products and at this point the majority of these features are used by well-less than 50% (if not 10%) of their customers.
I once saw a great video online that was titled "How Microsoft butters toast". I have not been able to find this since, but it shows a man in a kitchen with a knife and a pat of butter, holding it against the toast. Then the view switches to an outdoor view and you see about 1,000 people shaking the house. As the house shakes, the man's hand vibrates around the bread and the toast gets buttered. This is the most funny, but sadly accurate metaphor for Microsoft these days. Instead of just spreading butter across a piece of toast, they have to get 1,000 people to shake a house...
I deal with many small and medium sized business clients and they hate (and I mean HATE) SQL Server. These are people who are experts in their fields and they DONT want to become Tech experts - OR pay a fortune to have someone manage their SQL Server implementations. Indeed, I have many small clients who are running software written in FoxPro, Access, Paradox, and other older small application systems simply because they are simple to manage and don't present oddball, completely mysterious error messages that only a SQL expert can decipher, and that cost them money to fix.
Microsoft hires some of the most talented and intelligent people in the world, but in doing so, they have lost their way almost completely with simplicity and common sense - and this is NOT a good thing.
I would love to see Microsoft come up with something to make SQL implementations much easier to do, and manage. MSDE was a pretty good start - but instead of simplifying that, Microsoft went down the usual road of adding elaborate and complex features that again, are useless to thousands of businesses who just want to accurately count widgets (if you will).
The biggest problem in High Tech today is that we develop "cool" things and later, try to figure out how to use them. This is exactly opposite what High Tech was supposed to be about. Instead of solving problems with simple solutions, we now build all sorts of "cool" stuff and then figure out what to do with it. And simplicity got lost in that shuffle.
In short, the Space Shuttle is a very cool vehicle. But if you are just going to the corner 7-11, its complete overkill, and a skateboard would be the FAR better solution. I wish Microsoft would get back to thinking about that like it was in the late 70's and 80's.
September 22, 2010 at 7:24 am
blandry,
I believe there is a space between Access/FoxPro and SQL Server that isn't being filled well.
But....
SQL Server is complex because the needs of the people that need it are complex and varied. It can be managed by those who spend some time learn what they need to learn, the whole product doesn't need to be grokked in one setting. The embedded and lower end SQL Server products could be made simpler with more documentation for the casual user.
But...
I noticed that there are many "smart" people that don't want to put the time in to learn and resent paying people do the more complex tasks for them. And many of these people don't understand data. I encounter this all the time on even simple tasks in Excel, which many of the users I need up dealing with should know at least the basics or take a class. Since we have improved technology to the point that people can use more of it, many of them think that all technology is easy and magical. Not all complexity can be abstracted away.
September 22, 2010 at 7:28 am
I agree. In addition it would be nice to have a few commonly used ones built in, or just provided as functions. It seems everywhere I go I have to write Oracle's SYS_CONNECT_BY_PATH in a SQL Server function using a CTE.
September 22, 2010 at 7:30 am
Products get better by improving on their strengths and adding better ideas from whatever source. That other source is often competing products. So don't get your knickers in a wad about my references to Oracle features. Oracle should copy some SQL Server features, too!
Here's my requests, for a start:
Create or Replace syntax for views, procedures, functions, etc. That way, I don't have to write bozo code to handle whether the object already exists, and don't have to worry about losing undocumented grants when I drop and create.
Packages that contain related procedures and functions, like Oracle does.
An Object Explorer that has a clue about schemas, so I can open/close the schema node for my tables, views, etc., when I want to focus on one schema only.
Generate a script that shows all privileges/grants for a given user.
An option to replace a given domain name with another when a script is generated. That way, I don't have to search and replace thru the script afterwards, in order to transfer stuff from development to test to prod.
Generate Create Job scripts that a) include all related objects like operators, schedules, etc. and b) don't embed machine-specific GUID values in the script.
Raid Oracle's built-in function list for ideas, and include them. Especially, give us a date and number formatting function that is simple to use and makes a lick of sense. (See Oracle's format strings for ideas.) Better yet, if the function specs are copyrighted, copy them. It will make it easier for Oracle customers to convert to SQL Server, and easier for SQL server programmers to get their job done.
Fix the Linked Server connection code so it works as fast as the OpenQuery connection code does. OpenQuery is a pain in the rear to use compared to LinkedServer syntax, but it performs 100 to 300 times faster.
Make it easy to do a database project that understands versioning and installation order. Make it automagical. As I alter a table that has already been "deployed", log an alter script in source code control to make that table change. If the table hasn't been deployed already, just update the create table script in source code control. Make it automagical to keep track of version/releases, so I can, at the push of a button, get a set of scripts that will take any version/release of a database to any other, later version/release. And integrate that with source code control.
I would be more than happy to write up a more detailed explanation of any of the above for any MS SQL Server development team member who's interested. 🙂
September 22, 2010 at 7:31 am
They need to make intelleSence more intellegent, at the moment i find it slows things down where it could be really useful
September 22, 2010 at 7:32 am
Get rid of the garbage 2008 Activity Monitor and go back to the 2005 Activity Monitor, and if you want the nice graphs or whatever either make it another tab or else another interface. I HATE the 2008 SSMS for this very reason, as I used the pants off of the 05 version and feel lost without it.
September 22, 2010 at 7:42 am
sandor.pakh (9/22/2010)
Source control integration with various source control systems like Team Foundation directly from SSMS.
Note that Red Gate (my employer) has a tool that does this. SQL Source Control, if you're interested.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
September 22, 2010 at 7:45 am
Is anybody suggesting these to, I don't know, Microsoft? I don't see any links to Connect in here?
If we don't inform them through the feedback forum they've established, then you can't expect them to implement, or even realize you're asking.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
September 22, 2010 at 8:32 am
david_wendelken (9/22/2010)
Products get better by improving on their strengths and adding better ideas from whatever source. That other source is often competing products. So don't get your knickers in a wad about my references to Oracle features. Oracle should copy some SQL Server features, too!Create or Replace syntax for views, procedures, functions, etc. That way, I don't have to write bozo code to handle whether the object already exists, and don't have to worry about losing undocumented grants when I drop and create.
Packages that contain related procedures and functions, like Oracle does.
...
Yes to Packages but no to the Package as interface Package Body as implementation. Those features can be handled by public/private keywords.
--Paul Hunter
September 22, 2010 at 8:32 am
And the dam$N%$ed bug in the sql query editor, where, when I add a name component in front of a bracketed name and type the period, the period is magically transported to the end of the bracketed name!
Example:
[column_name]
I add:
abc[column_name]
Then type a period (.) and get:
abc[column_name].
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 33 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply