I have been playing around with the SQL Server 2005 Beta 2 and have a question about it.
Is there no option like in SQL Server 2000 where in Enterprise Manager you can right click the table and select Return All Rows?
Might this be something that they have left out of the Beta and plan to have in the final version?
I don't know about you but sometimes I need to just jump into a table and make a quick change which is why I think that the option of return all rows in EM is so handy. Especially for those that are not totally familiar with T-SQL.
Otherwise it seems that I would have to run a select against the table in QA, find the record in question which I may or may not know the exact value in the field I am trying to update. After finding that information then I have to go ahead and script an update query to make the changes I needed to. For a lot of things this is perfectly acceptable but for the small changes like changing one field value for a particular record this seems like a long way around.
If this is the way it is going to be than so be it. I was just wondering if I am missing something in the management console or not.
Anyway, enough of my whining. Just wondering if anybody else knows anything about this or has an opinion that they would like to share.
Thanks,
Jitter
Is there no option like in SQL Server 2000 where in Enterprise Manager you can right click the table and select Return All Rows?
Might this be something that they have left out of the Beta and plan to have in the final version?
I don't know about you but sometimes I need to just jump into a table and make a quick change which is why I think that the option of return all rows in EM is so handy. Especially for those that are not totally familiar with T-SQL.
Otherwise it seems that I would have to run a select against the table in QA, find the record in question which I may or may not know the exact value in the field I am trying to update. After finding that information then I have to go ahead and script an update query to make the changes I needed to. For a lot of things this is perfectly acceptable but for the small changes like changing one field value for a particular record this seems like a long way around.
If this is the way it is going to be than so be it. I was just wondering if I am missing something in the management console or not.
Anyway, enough of my whining. Just wondering if anybody else knows anything about this or has an opinion that they would like to share.
Thanks,
Jitter