Another issue with SQLServer 2005

Remote servers.

Our main database is an Ingres database, the web database is now SQLServer 2005. Occasionally we need to link data from both(for checks etc). Unfortunately Ingres cannot do cross catalog queries(no idea why, but as Postgres can't either, I blame the designer). Fortunately if you link in a remote server in SQLServer you can perform cross catalog selects. Simply set up a remote server for each Ingres catalog and use :

select *

from ingresdb1..owner.table_name

union all

from ingresdb2..owner.table_name


making sure you have set ansi_null and ansi_warnings to on.

However after I set up an ODBC connection to Ingres on the SQLServer 2005 database(which is no fun either as you need to set up IngresNet first and log in using the admin password) and then set up a remote server to Ingres in the SQLServer manager I ran a test query, it brought the whole server down.

Now MySQL cannot link to remote servers(that I know of), but I have yet to ask it to do something I know it can do and have it crash completely, I used to be able to say that was mostly true of SQLServer, but the 2005 server has been online for two weeks and crashed more than a dozen times in that period.

DON'T USE IT! EVER!

SQL Server 2005

Stick with me on this one:
I've just installed the client tools for SQLServer 2005. I have a small C: drive and needed to install it on my E: drive.

• I tell the installer to install to e:\program files\Microsoft...
• It tells me there isn't enough room
• I check drive e: to see that there is enough room, restart the installer and try again
• It still fails!
• I notice there is a button on the installer that will tell me how much disk space it needs
  • it needs 150mb on e:
  • 1.4GB on c:
  • It will install .net 2.0, visual studio developer and a whole lot more on the c: drive and I cannot change it
• I uninstall a couple of applications and move them to the e: drive
• I get enough room on my c: drive(just)
• It installs

All I want to do is set up a regular backup on the database. It's is simple on the previous versions of SQLServer, but on 2005 it isn't.
I end up using the maintenance wizard to build a job that will back up the database. At the end it tells me that 1) The T-SQL isn't the real T-SQL that it will run as I have asked for weird configurations and 2) It cannot save the job as their is an error. It's a fucking wizard, I typed and selected nothing, just clicked 'next' a lot.
I think I have got it running but I've used a large number of versions of SQLServer and one of the good things about it is the minimal time it takes to dump a large database. In this version it is taking forever.

In summary SQLServer adds very little to the database engine, server, whatever, just a lot of added crap to the extras and uses a hugh amount of disc space to achieve it.
I really hate Microsoft; SQLServer was their only worthwhile product but it now appears the SQLServer development team has been infiltrated by the marketing code bloaters.

Word to the wise, a database server serves data! Add tools to make backup easier and you are away.
MySQL must be very happy with SQLServer 2005 as it's just another good reason to migrate to MySQL.

PS: The JTDS JDBC driver still talks to it, which is one thing.

Open Office 2.1

I've written a mail merge for OOo documents. Originally targeting OOo 1.x (now removed) with extensive rewrites to cover 2.0(OOo became 100% standards compliant). With the release of OOo 2.1 I checked to ensure it still functioned as expected, as it is still complying to the same standards this should be a no-brainer. It was, my mail merge runs against OOo 2.1 just as it did against OOo 2.0.

Take some notes here Microsoft - no wait, you do understand standards, but if you conform to a standard then you will sell less crap. The power of open source, open standards.

Lessons to be learnt

If your name is Gene and you are attending a Guy Fawkes party at a friends house do not let either myself or Neil anywhere near the blue touch paper. Sometime, however, this is unavoidable.

Things to remember

1) Never try to put lazy loader into daomedge. Honestly! I've tried three times now and each time I come across another section that will be compromised if I did. I should remember that I wrote it to be simple and for the user to handle the persistence. I don't want the value objects to know about the DAO. The DAO is transient.


2) The company that we get our system from hasn't got a clue! I have spent a large amount of my time trying to find the link between a data table and a reference table. It doesn't seem to exist, anywhere. Reference information on a data table. Important information used in calculations stored in a FREE TEXT FIELD! What the hell are they thinking? They haven't heard of normalization or any other data design concept.

I need a drink.

As a footnote: I am loving the inline spell checker in Firefox 2.0!

This site is the funniest yet.

Again I thought this was a good religious parody site but then I realised it was true (despite this).

So funny...

Then there is this...

...which isn't funny at all. http://www.human-rights-and-christian-persecution.org/coptic.html.

And it keeps getting funnier...

... every single time I see this type of thing.

Firstly this :

Willisee : "Please god don't let the plane crash.".

[Plane crashes]

Willisee : "Ah, god must exist!".

is, well, just plain weird.

Secondly

Christ, like all those crucifed by the romans, died of asphyxiation. To do this they needed to be tied or nailed up for sometime. Nails through the palms of the hands won't do it which is why the romans et al nailed the victims through the wrists any stimgata wounds in the palms is wrong, totally and utterly wrong. One of the earliest sects, the coptics, gets it right.