Rating: 
Summary: Language problems
Review: Some of the other reviews have said that the book shows that the authors obviously have a problem with English. Guys, the problem isn't with English, it's with TRANSACT SQL: the authors of this book obviously don't know it very well. Where these publishers get some of these authors, I'll never know. The code here is formatted stranger than anything I've ever seen. It takes up lots of white space, but it doesn't do much (when it works at all). The explanations are rife with cliches and shallow, pointless commentary. They'd been better off not to have said anything at all. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to have written a book like this, but you never know about people.
Rating: 
Summary: Not advanced at all
Review: The problem, it seems to me, is that Henderson's The Guru's Guide to Transact-SQL has raised the bar on what exactly constitutes an advanced T-SQL book. Books like this would do well to take notice. The book has some good info at times, but it's not more advanced than, say, the docs that come with SQL Server.If the book were titled Transact-SQL for Beginners, maybe it would more fit the bill, I don't know. For my money, this book really wasn't worth the trouble. I'd say, maybe, 10% of it is useful to a T-SQL coder with any real experience.
Rating:
Summary: Klunky language, shallow explanations, and buggy code
Review: Not much to like about this book. Much of what's worth reading resembles the Books Online. I bought this expecting a wealth of useful info not in the BOL. I'm afraid it's not there. Couple that with klunky language (English is obviously a second language, with T-SQL third or fourth on the list) and lots of bugs in the code, and you have a book that's not worth buying.
Rating:
Summary: Reads like a rehash of the Books Online
Review: The book is heavily influenced by the Books Online. You almost come away from it feeling that the BOL should get a co-author credit. It's far from Advanced if Advanced is defined by that which goes beyond the BOL. I can't think of any part of the book that stands out as really beyond the BOL. There's the nigh useless deviation into complex math in T-SQL (why not try some graphics routines while you're at it <g>), but there's nothing that says, "Hey, look at me - I'll tell you something you could never learn from the BOL." The book was really disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: Keep your day jobs
Review: Advanced? Hardly. This is a warmed over version of the Books Online. Don't waste your time.
Rating:
Summary: Not advanced enough for me
Review: What does the word "advanced" actually mean? I thought it meant coverage above and beyond the vendor docs. I mean, that's why you buy a book like this, right - to get what you can't get from the vendor, right? Instead of advanced Transact-SQL, we get to suffer through page after page of nonsense like Itzik's code indention style vs. Tom's indention style. Who cares? The one used in the book doesn't match either of them! We get errors galore, too. Why so many? Well, when you spend all your time talking about writing newsgroup messages and other inappropriate material for a book, you neglect the really important stuff. That's what has happened here. This is one disaster of a book.
Rating:
Summary: Would win the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest
Review: Worst book I've ever read. Would easily win the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest (the annual contest for worst fictional writing). I know the book isn't supposed to be fiction, but what else do you call a book with so many errors? If factual errors aren't fictions, what are they? Add to this a hefty dose of purple prose and dreadful writing and you have a contender for the Bulwer-Lytton Contest.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty pathetic excuse for an advanced book
Review: Whatever caused these guys to think they had an advanced book here? This is strictly a beginner's book, and a poor one at that. As some of the other reviews have pointed out, the prose is fairly horrible and definitely indicates a problem with English as a language. More importantly, though, is the fact that there's little here that isn't also in the BOL (Books Online) that come with SQL Server. I was also put off by how weak the SQL 2000 coverage is. There are a good number of new features/functions/etc. in SQL 2000's Transact-SQL that aren't in this book. If you're going to regurgitate the vendor's online docs, the least you could do is do a complete job of it!
Rating:
Summary: Not a COMPLETE waste of time
Review: I don't agree with the other review on here that says this book is a complete waste of time. There are a few bright spots here and there. If you're very new to SQL Server, you may find, say, 5% of the book to be useful and to pass on info that you won't find in the Books Online.
However, I do agree that the narrative is pretty uneven at times. You can definitely tell that more than one person wrote this book (e.g., when you see completely different code formatting on the SAME page :-). I didn't get much out of the book myself, hence the two-star review. Then again, I'm an advanced SQL Server developer (MCDBA) who's been working with the product for about two years now. The book was definitely beneath me, but if you're just starting with SQL Server you might learn a few things from it.
Rating:
Summary: Less than I expected, a LOT less
Review: I guess one of the unfortunate side-effects of the computer book publishing boom is that people are getting published who can't write and books are getting into print that really shouldn't. This is one such book. It's very easily the worst technical book I've ever read. The prose is simply childish -- it's the worst amateurish stuff I've ever had the misfortune to read. Not only does English seem to be a second language for the authors, but T-SQL isn't high on the list, either. Their command of both of these leaves a lot to be desired. The bad prose takes the form of a silly recommendation about a DUDE subclause for a query (don't worry: it didn't make sense to me, either), goofy statements about paying more attention to someone because they have a similar name (a real common occurrence for someone named "Itzik", I'm sure), and on and on. It's so bad it's embarrassing. The T-SQL coverage is hit-and-miss and appears to have been originally written for 7.0, not 2000. Take, for example, the discussion of 2000's new rowversion data type. The authors make the statement that rowversion has nothing to do with the date and time. Really? Who said it did? This comment only makes sense if the paragraph originally referred to the timestamp data type, rowversion's predecessor in SQL Server 7.0. IOW, it makes no sense as written, and it appears that the authors took a book written for SQL Server 7.0 and merely replaced every occurence of timestamp with rowversion without even re-reading the end result. It terms of purple prose, right up there with the book itself is its foreword. It's as amateurish as the rest of it. It reads like a Hallmark card. It doesn't tell us *why* the authors wrote the book, *how* the author of the foreword knows the authors, or *why* she is qualified to endorse the book or they are qualified to write it. In fact, it doesn't tell us much except that the author of the foreword is as hapless a writer as the authors themselves are. All in all, this book was a complete waste of time. Do yourself a favor and skip it.
| 
