|
|
|
|
No matter how confident you are of what you're doing, any query that modifies FIFTY THOUSAND records on a live server is tense business. Took 9 min and 18 seconds! Though we ran one that took like 4 hours recently.
|
timeconsumerx
|
debug plz
Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:15 AM
|
Imperfect Clark
|
My speciality is bugging.
Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:25 AM
|
TheRobbStory
St. Petersburg
|
50k? Pfft, wimp.
Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:28 AM
|
Imperfect Clark
|
That is table 'SITE' - every one of those rows corresponds to a full-blown Web site we service, manage, or host (though thousands are defunct demos and stuff, meh)
[Edited by Imperfect Clark on 12/20/2006 5:41:46 PM. Reason for edit: fux]
Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:37 AM
|
kraft2
|
/mysql -local -u root -p
/mysql DROP TABLE Site;
Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:11 AM
|
Imperfect Clark
|
heh, mysql
Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:38 AM
|
kraft2
|
mysql (free) > microsoft sql server (not free)
*nix > MS
apache > IIS
Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:36 AM
|
Lysander
|
gtfo elitist fanboi
Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:40 AM
|
kraft2
|
elitist =/= free servers and backend software.
elitist = paying HOW much for site licenses and upgrades?
Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:48 AM
|
Lysander
|
nobody even mentioned operating systems or web servers, yet you're proclaiming your fanboish loyalty to appear elitist
i maintain: gtfo
Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:57 AM
|
TheRobbStory
St. Petersburg
|
xServe lol
Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:22 AM
|
kraft2
|
and i quote:
quote :
kraft2
1 Photos
/mysql -local -u root -p
/mysql DROP TABLE Site;
[ Edit] 12/20/2006 7:11:10 PM
Imperfect Clark
87 Photos
heh, mysql |
I mention jokingly mysql (non MS database backend)
and derek shoots back with a short, to the point comment.. (obviously a fan of the MS version of databasing)
therefore... there WAS a obvious preference to OS, and platform..
Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:50 AM
|
Lysander
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems
wow look at all those sql-based database systems
Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:23 AM
|
Imperfect Clark
|
^^ Obvious OS/platform preference? Pretty assumptive. I was "heh"ing at the notion of managing our system with mysql - fire away, I'm ready. Just bear in mind that, principly, I'm in agreement about the integral superiority of *nix, Apache, etc... (and so is about everyone, last time I checked) And Andrew's definitely right about that elitest vibe from open source pundits. Of COURSE open source is wonderful... boasting about the superiority of open source software is usually just a ploy to make everyone aware of how immersed/knowledgeable you are.
I'm not that in love with the Evil Empire, but this is capitalism... for a small business like ours, an MS partnership is practical. And uh, VS .NET 05 is pretty nice.
[Edited by Imperfect Clark on 12/21/2006 1:38:58 AM. Reason for edit: engrish]
Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:34 AM
|
kraft2
|
annnnnddddd all but about 4 of em are commonplace today
im not looking for an argument, im not an elitist by any means.. i prefer MySQL on a *Nix platform.
Derek who is an amazing programmer uses MS's version on a Windows Server platform.
woo yeahhh... taco.
Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:36 AM
|
Imperfect Clark
|
I'm by no means an amazing programmer. I'm lucky to know a few, though.
Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:38 AM
|
kraft2
|
amazing programmer = someone who does well with what he has, and doesnt brag
Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:39 AM
|
GLiNTCH
Tampa, FL
|
^ I second teh GTFO .gif)
Most sustems I have seen developed for non-MS platforms don't look shyney or customer freindly at all. At time I redo those systems with great pleasure of keeping the customer in mind. Unfortunately when I had the displeasure of looking at non-MS systems they were often build like cap, in a business sence - which implied disregard for business needs and just plan poor solution skills on the part of the programmers and DBA's who have supposedly built these systems[although I've seen tons of copy&paste from scripts sites]
So imho and some experience small busineses are getting pwned[not in a good way] by non-Msft "platform" solutions.
Friday, December 22, 2006 6:23 PM
|
Alan
Tampa, FL
|
BEGIN TRAN
-- Your statement goes here. Wait for the results you want
-- COMMIT TRAN -- After verifying your results, highlight this line and execute
Friday, December 22, 2006 8:24 PM
|
Okrbot23
|
did I just witness a couple of salvos in the "Programming civil war" cause uh...that shit just went over my head, granted im a gaming nerd and not a comp nerd. regardles, "Power to the people!"
Friday, December 22, 2006 10:23 PM
|
Lysander
|
i'm actually on kraft's side, i just hate it when anyone proclaims random, uncalled-for loyalties
mmm, pepsi
pepsi is SHIT.
sprite > mountain dew.
full-throttle > sobe.
barq's > mug.
coca-motherfuckin-cola FOR THE WIN. *headbutts opponent in testicles*
*grasping testicles* dude, why?
Saturday, December 23, 2006 2:14 AM
|
Imperfect Clark
|
I think people confuse user-friendliness with familiarity, with regard to the user-friendliness of Microsoft apps. Microsoft popularized all kinds of interface styles that weren't necessarily streamlined and perfect, but we all adapted and those methods became centralized as "normal". A simple example would be the sense of dullness that Java apps give off... in terms of interface theory, the differences to C-driven MS GUIs are negligible. However, even the most ornamental things like fonts, colors, and the appearance or depth of buttons/panes/etc can make a difference in how quickly new users close the gaps of evaluation/execution.
Saturday, December 23, 2006 3:58 AM
|
Alan
Tampa, FL
|
^ Agree. I always like to cite the example of how people unfamiliar with macs frequently refer to them as being "difficult to use" and not "user friendly." I even saw many network admins bitch about Windows 2000 when they were used to NT 4.0.
[rant]
And, speaking of which, this looks like Query Analyzer. One of my favorite development tools, with the exception of it's shallow undo buffer. I am highly, highly disappointed in SQL Management Studio. Not only is it a major resource hog that takes a noticable amount of time to launch and a total pig if you're running it locally on your server, but it's also highly unreliable. It locks up for extended periods of time, crashes, is very slow to respond when you're querying bits of database schema (e.g. object browser). If your connection breaks and you try to re-run your query after reconnecting, it automatically sets your active database to "master," so that script you just ran that created 50 tables and 300 sprocs just hosed your server. Microsoft could've probably pretty easily made QA SQL Server 2005 compatible and shipped it to us, but they didn't. You can't view stored procedure source in for 2k5 sprocs in QA.
[/end rant]
Sunday, December 24, 2006 5:01 AM
|
Imperfect Clark
|
Yeah, it's Query Analyzer.
quote :
after reconnecting, it automatically sets your active database to "master," so that script you just ran that created 50 tables and 300 sprocs just hosed your server |
Haha, shit.. I'll keep that in mind next time I run a lengthy script.
Sunday, December 24, 2006 9:18 AM
|
timeconsumerx
|
perhaps theres a reason why certain OSs are more popular?
perhaps its because only people who dwell upon the minutaie of computer operation prefer a more complicated yet more applicable operating system
while the casual computer user prefers to use something thats been shed of technicalities to more suit their needs?
Sunday, December 24, 2006 10:17 AM
|
shchmue
Tampa
|
adopting an OSS solution without an experienced admin is suicide. MS offers, among other things, certifications to try and ensure a large number of people know what they're doing when using their products.
please don't peg me to one side, i just like to be fair. kraft, you're being really biased and not acknowledging the advantages of a standardized set of tools versus ones you build yourself.
Sunday, December 24, 2006 11:44 PM
|
Imperfect Clark
|
quote :
perhaps theres a reason why certain OSs are more popular? |
Most everyone here is running Windows, and I can guarantee that most were using it before they had seen/tried other systems. Microsoft came to prominence through effective business methods, not popularity. I think it will be a long time before we see OS's emerge solely on its merit and popularity. At this point running Linux (or even OS X) is choosing to make all kinds of sacrifices due to the prevalance of prioprietary Microsoft software.
Sunday, December 24, 2006 11:54 PM
|
Alan
Tampa, FL
|
Not to mention, free software isn't really free. They say that 70% of the cost of software is support. I would have to assume that it takes a higher level of skill to maintain Linux systems, thus savings in licensing get eaten up in personnel. Also, corporations usually pay for their software licenses over time -- e.g., that $700 Windows Server license you bought for your $20,000 server is absorbed over five years. SQL Server's licensing makes it quite affordable as well. To compete w/ products like MySQL, SQL Server 2005 (branded as Express) is free if you don't use more than one CPU and your database is smaller than 4 GB.
Monday, December 25, 2006 1:26 AM
|
GLiNTCH
Tampa, FL
|
^ Agreed. Also the whole Microsoft [blank] Express product line from MSFT is exploding the .NET and MS SQL market by inviting more prople to create more with less [and yes less knowledge too, since we are heavily targeting hobbyist and home 'tinkerers' not Dev Pros (who are also using them to smaller projects for smaller cleints) ].
Monday, December 25, 2006 2:58 AM
|
timeconsumerx
|
good point, clark.
Monday, December 25, 2006 5:30 AM
|
|
|
|
