Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

Tony Rogerson wrote:
> CLR :: Common Language Runtime.
>
> In a nutshell it allows you to write code in any langauge that supports the
> Common Language Specificiation in .NET (there are a lot now and not just MS
> grown ones).
>
> Now its integrated into SQL Server we can write stuff that T-SQL doesn't do
> very well like string manipulation, complex mathematics, point data types,
> objects etc... in a .NET language and then run them in SQL Server using the
> CLR environment.
>
> It allows us to extend SQL Server infinitely using CLR - User Definied
> Functions, Types, Stored Procedures, Triggers etc... - its quite cool to be
> honest, no doubt other vendors will catch up in future versions.
OK, I'm slowly starting to get annoyed... DB2 supported CLR long before SQL Server (one year to be correct). Before talking about "other vendors" it helps to at least read up on them.

What MS SQL Server achieves with CLR other vendors do with e.g. Java. A data type foreign to SQL is, btw, often called a "black box ADT" supported by IDS and Oracle for years and it's not really all that magic because it's a black box (which is what Mark T. was gearing towards with his earlier questions I believe).
I understand that it must be really exciting to finally break out of T-SQL, but others weren't stuck there to begin with, having supported Cobol, Fortran, Ada, C, Java, C# and VB.

BTW, what MS is doing is meshing the OS and the DBMS. All eggs in one basket. Either Windows takes over the world... or not.

Cheers
Serge

PS: Allowing a .NET developer to write a trigger which is a DB object is a really bad idea. But it does play into the thsi shocking views vs. procedures thread on c.d.ms-sqlserver nicely. If a developer feels uncomfortable with SQL they have absolutely no business meddling with an active database object like a trigger.

-- 
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab