4 ms·

Edit: read the parent wrong, but leaving my comment here so it doesn’t look like backtracking some offensive content. > wonder if one is giving up a lot of pow

by oefrha 7y ago

Edit: read the parent wrong, but leaving my comment here so it doesn’t look like backtracking some offensive content. > wonder if one is giving up a lot of power. That’s an irrational concern. GUI tools also come with SQL consoles where you can do anything that’s possible in the CLI. With the added benefit of results being presented in a nicer way.

wenc 7y ago
> That’s an irrational concern. Is it though? So for SQL Server, you can't really see the live query plan (real-time plan + statistics while the query is running) without the GUI. You cannot see the Activity Monitor without the GUI. There are elements that cannot be accessed via pure SQL. 3rd party GUIs generally don't support these features.
- oefrha 7y ago
  Never mind, I read your comment wrong.
  - wenc 7y ago
    No worries, I appreciate it.
yashap 7y ago
I think you’ve missed wenc’s point - they aren’t arguing for a CLI, they’re arguing for a UI specialized to a single RDBMS, vs one trying to convert many RDBMSs.
kyleee 7y ago
If you've used SSMS extensively you'll know it's tailored to SQL server like a glove. You'd definitely be leaving usability on the table going with a generic DB client. The person you've responded to even mentioned that of course you can do all things via CLI, but SSMS builds powerful GUI layer on top of that
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  > If you've used SSMS extensively you'll know it's tailored to SQL server like a glove. Sure, assuming that MSSQL is a foot.