| Author |
New Data Warehousing Exam
|
|
|
| Does anyone know what they are planning on doing with exam
70-019?
Is there going to be a SQL 2000 version of it or are they
just going to wait until the new version of SQL to think
about it.
Thanks-
| |
| Alan Davis 2003-02-11, 7:23 am |
| I very much doubt it. I can't understand why a 2000 version was never
introduced.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:31:34 -0800, "Todd" <toddack@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Does anyone know what they are planning on doing with exam
>70-019?
>
>Is there going to be a SQL 2000 version of it or are they
>just going to wait until the new version of SQL to think
>about it.
>
>Thanks-
| |
|
| I'm interested in that too and I wish there was a 2000 version.
From what I've studied it looks like the Data Warehousing in 2000 is much
more complicated and it has a lot more features than version 7. Maybe MS
thought it is too tough for them to develop a new exam and not enough people
interested(?)
"Alan Davis" <T> wrote in message
news:aurh4v0bgoini2stqqkb0lac9
293u9it56@4ax.com...
> I very much doubt it. I can't understand why a 2000 version was never
> introduced.
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:31:34 -0800, "Todd" <toddack@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone know what they are planning on doing with exam
> >70-019?
> >
> >Is there going to be a SQL 2000 version of it or are they
> >just going to wait until the new version of SQL to think
> >about it.
> >
> >Thanks-
>
| |
| Alan Davis 2003-02-11, 9:24 am |
| The few companies that I have work with that have upgraded to 2000,
did so because of the enhanced dw capabilities.
I guess why ms never included a 2000 version of the exam was that
there was little take up of the previous exam on that subject.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:01:50 -0600, "Danut" <danutzp1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I'm interested in that too and I wish there was a 2000 version.
>From what I've studied it looks like the Data Warehousing in 2000 is much
>more complicated and it has a lot more features than version 7. Maybe MS
>thought it is too tough for them to develop a new exam and not enough people
>interested(?)
>
>"Alan Davis" <T> wrote in message
> news:aurh4v0bgoini2stqqkb0lac9
293u9it56@4ax.com...
>> I very much doubt it. I can't understand why a 2000 version was never
>> introduced.
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:31:34 -0800, "Todd" <toddack@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Does anyone know what they are planning on doing with exam
>> >70-019?
>> >
>> >Is there going to be a SQL 2000 version of it or are they
>> >just going to wait until the new version of SQL to think
>> >about it.
>> >
>> >Thanks-
>>
>
| |
|
| "Todd" <toddack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:092801c2d1c9$83aa8f60$a60
1280a@phx.gbl...
> Does anyone know what they are planning on doing with exam
> 70-019?
>
> Is there going to be a SQL 2000 version of it or are they
> just going to wait until the new version of SQL to think
> about it.
I've asked some MS folks about it and they've all said they were unaware of
any plans to update that exam. I think it's probably relatively unpopular,
but my local MS office is trying to promote Analysis Services, so I'm
surprised they're not more willing to invest in supporting the latest
version with an exam.
| |
| Christopher Hance 2003-02-13, 11:23 pm |
| Any recommendation on general OLAP / DW books? I'm somewhat tempted to take
that exam just to have a distinguishing feature from the average MCDBA (as
the boot camp track always seems to use 216 as an elective), but I've got a
bit to learn first. I already have a valid elective (as confirmed by mcphelp
email within the last month), but IIS4 is as deserving of a questioning look
as "Network Infrastructure" for a DBA. Probably more so, because one can
justify a modified network topology to accomodate heavily-accessed SQL
Server instances.
I'd prefer material on SQL2000, as I'd rather have up-to-date knowledge than
a perfect score on the certification test.
Thanks,
Chris Hance
| |
| @m$Sucks.com 2003-02-16, 6:24 pm |
| Alan Davis wrote:
> The few companies that I have work with that have upgraded to 2000,
> did so because of the enhanced dw capabilities.
>
> I guess why ms never included a 2000 version of the exam was that
> there was little take up of the previous exam on that subject.
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:01:50 -0600, "Danut" <danutzp1@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm interested in that too and I wish there was a 2000 version.
>
>>From what I've studied it looks like the Data Warehousing in 2000 is much
>
>>more complicated and it has a lot more features than version 7. Maybe MS
>>thought it is too tough for them to develop a new exam and not enough people
>>interested(?)
>>
>>"Alan Davis" <T> wrote in message
>> news:aurh4v0bgoini2stqqkb0lac9
293u9it56@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I very much doubt it. I can't understand why a 2000 version was never
>>>introduced.
>>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:31:34 -0800, "Todd" <toddack@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Does anyone know what they are planning on doing with exam
>>>>70-019?
>>>>
>>>>Is there going to be a SQL 2000 version of it or are they
>>>>just going to wait until the new version of SQL to think
>>>>about it.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks-
>>>
>
SQL Server is usually not scalable enough for a data warehouse
| |
|
| "@m$Sucks.com" <""Quad\"@m$Sucks.com"> wrote in message
news:#vSIklh1CHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP09...
> SQL Server is usually not scalable enough for a data warehouse
What do you mean by "not scalable enough for a data warehouse"?
Danut
| |
| Alan Davis 2003-02-17, 2:23 am |
| Danut, sql server 2000 is 'scalable', so don't listen to that
rubbish. Naturally this assumes that the design, implementation and
partitioning of information is conducted in a manner fit for the
expected volumes of information.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:43:41 -0600, "Danut" <danutzp1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"@m$Sucks.com" <""Quad\"@m$Sucks.com"> wrote in message
>news:#vSIklh1CHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP09...
>> SQL Server is usually not scalable enough for a data warehouse
>
>What do you mean by "not scalable enough for a data warehouse"?
>
>Danut
>
>
| |
| Danut 2003-02-17, 10:23 am |
| I was trying to get a professional answer from him not just "it's not
scalable because I hate MS". I thought the guy is more than just a simpler
hater. It looks like I was wrong.
Danut
"Alan Davis" <T> wrote in message
news:06315vks2s7nv1liop1qlq3k3
ouraehhdn@4ax.com...
> Danut, sql server 2000 is 'scalable', so don't listen to that
> rubbish. Naturally this assumes that the design, implementation and
> partitioning of information is conducted in a manner fit for the
> expected volumes of information.
>
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:43:41 -0600, "Danut" <danutzp1@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"@m$Sucks.com" <""Quad\"@m$Sucks.com"> wrote in message
> >news:#vSIklh1CHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP09...
> >> SQL Server is usually not scalable enough for a data warehouse
> >
> >What do you mean by "not scalable enough for a data warehouse"?
> >
> >Danut
|
|
|
|