<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SQL 2008 vs SQL 2005 &#8211; binary data performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.sallarp.com/sql-2008-binary-data-performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.sallarp.com/sql-2008-binary-data-performance/</link>
	<description>Code, Code, Revolution!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:26:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CodeGecko</title>
		<link>http://blog.sallarp.com/sql-2008-binary-data-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-178</link>
		<dc:creator>CodeGecko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:14:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sallarp.com/?p=27#comment-178</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s one good reason to upgrade from SQL 05 to SQL 08. I was hesitant about the price tag but for that performance increase, it&#039;s probably worth it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s one good reason to upgrade from SQL 05 to SQL 08. I was hesitant about the price tag but for that performance increase, it&#8217;s probably worth it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)

Served from: blog.sallarp.com @ 2010-07-30 17:19:03 -->