SQL
Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry I've been negelecting you my lovely reader. There's just a whole lot to play with at the moment, just got a reasonably priced Video Camera, my lovely bike, been playing with VS.NET 2005 Beta 1, getting a new deployment (and tracking down a deadlock) on this site and finally playing with Adobe Premiere Pro - which is just awesome, if you've been stuck with Windows Movie Maker, try a real editing package!Whew...as well as that I've been looking into SQL Hierarchies using something called 'Nested Sets' by Joe Celko - this really is the best way I've seen of doing...
Just been catching up on the PDC presentations, came across this one on Yukon, also, for an interesting perspective on why you should use SPs in Sql Server, watch the first 10 minutes! Man, I am so looking foward to Yukon reaching RTM; the architectures which this thing enables will be so elegant.
UPDATE: As Jon Galloway pointed out, these are pretty buggy; the UI takes a bit of getting used to (or sucks to an incredible degree would be more accurate) - hint, don't click on the images for each track, click on the text. Worth persevering though!
Noticed a link in my referrer log from this post which comments on a comment I made in the whole Dyanmic SQL debate, this comment:
Right. Because evaluating arguments based on their validity is too much work, so it's much easier to pick the "winner" by picking the side with the least vested interest. It apparently has nothing to do with the fact that Frans is, well, correct?
Based on my comment taken out of context from this post:
"To be honest I'm always a bit reticent to pay much credence to an argument on an approach to Data Access from someone who has...
The SqlJunkies weblog site is really starting to fill out, it's fantastic to have so many SQL experts posting in one place! Oh, and I'm not just saying that because I agree with Donny Mack's views on SPs; well, partially, reporting is still a pain but I had discovered a good link to a version using the SP to generate the Dynamic SQL which seemed like a sound approach.
Frans Bouma really doesn't see the point of using Stored Procedures over using Dynamic SQL - so Frans, what's your take on such things as Indexed Views and User Defined Functions - which are essentially SPs but there's no equivalent for Dynamic SQL, so you're suggesting I should not use these any more? To be honest I'm always a bit reticent to pay much credence to an argument on an approach to Data Access from someone who has a vested interest (I know LLBLGen Pro supports SPs but it does have a strong bias towards Dynamically Generated T-SQL), kinda like MS...
Found this on Ashutosh Nilkanth's blog (good name!), basically allows you to run pretty much any CLR code using a Sql Server extended stored procedure - not nearly as good as Yukon, but if you need to do this now, it is a start!
Though I'd point to an excellent article on Indexed Views. For those who don't know what these are, well, if you have a fairly complex database schema, you can gain a great deal of performance benefits by aggregating the output of common queries into indexed views. Unlike normal views, these are authomatically updated when the underlying data changes (normal views are pretty much just running another query when you call them).
They're best suited when you perform frequent queries on relatively static underlying data (kind of a database level cache)...