Sql-server – Visual Studio vs. SQL Server Management Studio – Your Pick

database-managementsql serverssmsversion controlvisual studio

Just to preface: I work in a small company that does ASP.NET development and uses SQL Server 2005 for all of our database needs.

I was curious as to what were the pros and cons of using Visual Studio or SQL Server Management Studio for our development on the database side (i.e. table creation, stored procedure writing, etc.).

Right now we perform all of our database tasks inside Management Studio and I was wondering if there was some benefit to using Visual Studio instead. Would it make it easier to keep track of procedure changes and other modifications to the database (whether that is through Visual Studio itself or through some type of source control (planning on implementing subversion soon).

I don't personally have problems working with Management Studio but if it would be more efficient and more controllable through Visual Studio in ways that I am just not familiar with I would love to hear about it.

EDIT: I just wanted to note that my specific development environments are SQL Sever 2005, Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition, and Visual Studio Team System 2008 Development Edition. We do not have team foundation server or any other extras running or installed.

Best Answer

My personal method is to use SQL MS for all the design-related stuff (schema design, diagrams, keys, indexes, etc.), but to craft all my stored procedures, functions and the like in Visual Studio in a "Database" project attached to my solution -- mainly because it lets me keep the procs better version-controlled that way (as I find they generally change more often than the schema), and I find it's particularly handy using the context menus in VS to run the procs on my test and staging machines directly, since I do that so often.

Syntax:

ALTER TABLE {TABLENAME} 
ADD {COLUMNNAME} {TYPE} {NULL|NOT NULL} 
CONSTRAINT {CONSTRAINT_NAME} DEFAULT {DEFAULT_VALUE}
WITH VALUES

Example:

ALTER TABLE SomeTable
        ADD SomeCol Bit NULL --Or NOT NULL.
 CONSTRAINT D_SomeTable_SomeCol --When Omitted a Default-Constraint Name is autogenerated.
    DEFAULT (0)--Optional Default-Constraint.
WITH VALUES --Add if Column is Nullable and you want the Default Value for Existing Records.

Notes:

Optional Constraint Name:
If you leave out CONSTRAINT D_SomeTable_SomeCol then SQL Server will autogenerate
a Default-Contraint with a funny Name like: DF__SomeTa__SomeC__4FB7FEF6

Optional With-Values Statement:
The WITH VALUES is only needed when your Column is Nullable
and you want the Default Value used for Existing Records.
If your Column is NOT NULL, then it will automatically use the Default Value
for all Existing Records, whether you specify WITH VALUES or not.

How Inserts work with a Default-Constraint:
If you insert a Record into SomeTable and do not Specify SomeCol's value, then it will Default to 0.
If you insert a Record and Specify SomeCol's value as NULL (and your column allows nulls),
then the Default-Constraint will not be used and NULL will be inserted as the Value.

Notes were based on everyone's great feedback below.
Special Thanks to:
@Yatrix, @WalterStabosz, @YahooSerious, and @StackMan for their Comments.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Visual-studio – Should I add the Visual Studio .suo and .user files to source control

Sql – Add a column with a default value to an existing table in SQL Server

Syntax:

Example:

Notes:

Related Topic