Comments on: SQL Server 2008 Sucks http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/ SQL Server database administration, performance tuning, consulting, training, and community building. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:29:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: steve http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-18323 steve Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:46:43 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-18323 "Its sucks! And blows! At the same time!" (from the song 'Every OS Sucks' how apt) “Its sucks! And blows! At the same time!”
(from the song ‘Every OS Sucks’ how apt)

]]> By: steve http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-18322 steve Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:38:25 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-18322 I'm trying to find anything on the net to cover this and there is very little. For me, so far, SQL20008 absolutely blows (I'm talking about the SMSS) 1. I can no longer edit data returned from a query I run as if its a spreadsheet of data (unless its only 1 table and has no joins) 2. I write a SELECT with JOINS using the table view, great, now i change the SELECT to UPDATE and a I get a new CROSS JOINED table added in there, so if i run it (and i did) I'm going to update the whole table ! 3. Data imports from a text file now treat empty fields as a blank space, not null, so i have to rewrite a lot of stuff. 4. All tables in the table view are prefixed dbo. so i can no longer press a lteer key to jump down the list 5. I try to cut & paste rows across 2 identically structured DBs which worked great in SQL2000, now I lose i think it was TEXT type fields in this process. 6. I cannot make a query i run return large text to the results pane Maybe some of these have options in there to fix them. I've not looked. I shouldnt have to. A lot of this behaviour is unintuitive and contradicts what as a user of SQL2000 I'd expect. What i can't beleive is that in SQL2005 release (I presume this had these 'features' also) there wasnt an outcry and this stuff fixed in SQL2008 I’m trying to find anything on the net to cover this and there is very little. For me, so far, SQL20008 absolutely blows (I’m talking about the SMSS)
1. I can no longer edit data returned from a query I run as if its a spreadsheet of data (unless its only 1 table and has no joins)
2. I write a SELECT with JOINS using the table view, great, now i change the SELECT to UPDATE and a I get a new CROSS JOINED table added in there, so if i run it (and i did) I’m going to update the whole table !
3. Data imports from a text file now treat empty fields as a blank space, not null, so i have to rewrite a lot of stuff.
4. All tables in the table view are prefixed dbo. so i can no longer press a lteer key to jump down the list
5. I try to cut & paste rows across 2 identically structured DBs which worked great in SQL2000, now I lose i think it was TEXT type fields in this process.
6. I cannot make a query i run return large text to the results pane

Maybe some of these have options in there to fix them. I’ve not looked. I shouldnt have to.
A lot of this behaviour is unintuitive and contradicts what as a user of SQL2000 I’d expect.
What i can’t beleive is that in SQL2005 release
(I presume this had these ‘features’ also)
there wasnt an outcry and this stuff fixed in SQL2008

]]> By: Brent Ozar http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-15452 Brent Ozar Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:29:21 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-15452 Ark - I've got some bad news for you there. 2005 is dropping and recreating the table too - it's just that now in 2008, you get alerted about it instead of SSMS just doing it without telling you. I'm all for the 2008 solution there. I'd rather know when my tables are going to be dropped & recreated. Ark – I’ve got some bad news for you there. 2005 is dropping and recreating the table too – it’s just that now in 2008, you get alerted about it instead of SSMS just doing it without telling you. I’m all for the 2008 solution there. I’d rather know when my tables are going to be dropped & recreated.

]]> By: ARK http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-15451 ARK Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:21:39 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-15451 SQL Server 2008 blows at table modification, it always says it has to drop and recreate the table. WTF. 2005 never complains. SQL Server 2008 blows at table modification, it always says it has to drop and recreate the table. WTF. 2005 never complains.

]]> By: Brent Ozar http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-10286 Brent Ozar Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:08:02 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-10286 Hmmm - worse than 2005? I thought 2005 was much worse, especially for clusters. Hmmm – worse than 2005? I thought 2005 was much worse, especially for clusters.

]]> By: Sid http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-10285 Sid Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:45:38 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-10285 Installing it is a royal pain! Installing it is a royal pain!

]]> By: Lee Grissom http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-5547 Lee Grissom Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:55:27 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-5547 Will DBAs get to choose to migrate to either 2005 or 2008 after 2008 becomes available? I tend to think new licenses for 2005 will be hard to come by. So it's either stick with 2000, or wait until 2011. :P Okay, maybe I'm being a little egregious. Will DBAs get to choose to migrate to either 2005 or 2008 after 2008 becomes available? I tend to think new licenses for 2005 will be hard to come by. So it’s either stick with 2000, or wait until 2011. :P Okay, maybe I’m being a little egregious.

]]> By: David http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-5546 David Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:46:41 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-5546 Good comments and somewhat valid concerns. It certainly seems like another 12 months of development and they could have done a lot to include most of the things you mention and at least include the backward compatibility to 2005. As for these being reasons to not upgrade to 2008, I can't see it. For those that are running on 2000 it would still seem like the best solution would be to jump ahead and work through any issues involved. Especially if you are using Enterprise Edition. Thanks for the post! Good comments and somewhat valid concerns. It certainly seems like another 12 months of development and they could have done a lot to include most of the things you mention and at least include the backward compatibility to 2005.

As for these being reasons to not upgrade to 2008, I can’t see it. For those that are running on 2000 it would still seem like the best solution would be to jump ahead and work through any issues involved. Especially if you are using Enterprise Edition.

Thanks for the post!

]]> By: BrentO http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-5545 BrentO Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:30:54 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-5545 Jason, they would never do that, ever - they wouldn't do it to the DB2 team, ha ha ho ho. Christian, you hit the nail on the head there. I wasn't going to come right out and say it, but yeah, that's exactly what this is. So many DBAs out there are still saddled with SQL 2000 servers, and this isn't going to be the release that makes them upgrade. SQL 2005 is going to be the release that makes them upgrade. They're going to say, "Okay, I have to get off SQL 2000, but I'm not comfortable going to 2008 yet, so we'll go to 2005." We heard this at the Customer Advisory Board too - there's not enough reward in 2008 for most users to balance out the risks. Data warehouses will be the exception - those guys will move to get the better star schema optimizations, the resource governor, the data compression, etc - but they already use Enterprise exclusively, and they have a lower number of servers to manage. Jason, they would never do that, ever – they wouldn’t do it to the DB2 team, ha ha ho ho.

Christian, you hit the nail on the head there. I wasn’t going to come right out and say it, but yeah, that’s exactly what this is. So many DBAs out there are still saddled with SQL 2000 servers, and this isn’t going to be the release that makes them upgrade. SQL 2005 is going to be the release that makes them upgrade.

They’re going to say, “Okay, I have to get off SQL 2000, but I’m not comfortable going to 2008 yet, so we’ll go to 2005.” We heard this at the Customer Advisory Board too – there’s not enough reward in 2008 for most users to balance out the risks.

Data warehouses will be the exception – those guys will move to get the better star schema optimizations, the resource governor, the data compression, etc – but they already use Enterprise exclusively, and they have a lower number of servers to manage.

]]> By: Christian Hasker http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/07/sql-server-2008-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-5543 Christian Hasker Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:55:40 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=1096#comment-5543 Brent - do I detect a little 'Vista' in this post. Is 2008 the version folks will skip, staying on 2005 until 2011 comes along? Brent – do I detect a little ‘Vista’ in this post. Is 2008 the version folks will skip, staying on 2005 until 2011 comes along?

]]>