Slashdot Mirror
MSSQL 2005 Finally Released
mnovotny writes "Computerworld reports that Microsoft is finally set to release their belated SQL Server 2005. From the article: 'Despite a two-year delay, several users who have tested the software cited the improved performance and new functionality it brings as positive developments that likely will convince them to upgrade soon.' The free version can be downloaded directly from Microsoft."
You can download 'web installers' I believe, but ISO images are here
We were talking about this today. We have a need to cluster our main Intranet server and our current SQL 2000 Standard license doesn't allow clustering. With Enterprise, you can cluster up to four. That all changes with SQL 2005 - you can have a two node cluster with the standard edition, which is far cheaper.
The catch is whether or not we want to be one of the first servers to adopt SQL 2005. New releases scare the hell out of me, but we've also had some recent downtimes that a clustered server might have helped with.
Decisions, decisions . . .
I installed SQL Server 2005 Enterprise downloaded from the MSDN last week.
The Management Studio Interface is pretty good, although not as responsive as I would like on a 2.8 GHz P4. Thankfully stored procedures can be edited in a non-modal window (in tabs).
SQL server also comes with MSXML 6 and SQLXML4. The upgrade analysis tool is very neat.
Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Professional is much more CPU intensive than the Management Studio. They do look rather similar.
Microsoft Visual SourceSafe 2005 has an updated inteface, however many screens still look the same.
One of the most exciting features in SQL Server 2005 for me is the new Report Builder. SQL Server 2005 includes a new ClickOnce WinForms app called Report Builder that allows end-users to design their own reports from a business-user friendly data model. It is very similar to Business Object's WebIntelligence for those of you familiar with that product, but with an apparently more affordable licensing arrangement.
Essentially, the data architect takes the OLTP or data warehouse and abstracts it via metadata into Business entities with which end users are familiar. In Business Objects, this semantic layer is called a Business Universe and in SQLServer Reporting Services it's called the Data Model. Because this semantic layer understands how the data should be put together, it writes the underlying SQL necessary to give the user the answer they want. In principle and demos, it is very slick. We'll soon see how the two stack up in reality at my place of business, as we're setting up both this week to play with.
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166 851&cid=13914395
Clearly, this (as well as news of Oracle's "free/lite" version of 10g), are good news... that Open Source projects like MySQL, PHP....
MS HAS ALWAYS OFFERED A FREE DATABASE ENGINE, its no secret. SQl Server 2005 Express is just the new version of this product which has been available for years. Because of its easy transition to Sql Server its used a lot as a started Database for companies trying to sell in the SBM market. A lot of software application make use of MSDE (which is what the engine was called before Express edition)
For more information here http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/default.mspx
Now as for the Express editions being free... They are not (someone let me know if I am wrong here). They cost like 40 bucks or so, I had the beta installed on my system, once beta was over it prompted me to register/pay for it within 30 days..etc the usual MS registration.
This isn't some 'new thing' that MS is doing because it's running scared of OSS.
Keeping the business logic out of the database may be good for you if the only thing your database ever talks to is a web app, but lots of us have databases that talk to a LOT of different applications. Rather than reinvent the wheel implementing the buisness logic in a million apps, we keep it in the database, where it keeps everthing consistant, no matter what app is talking to the database, and where it can run fast.
It appears that MS has done some interesting feature shuffling in their various free editions.
m pare-features.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/co
Has anyone out their tested out what is available in SQL express as far as job scheduling , DTS (now ETL) and replication?
Does anyone want to flame me for unashamedly using MS SQL?
As best as I can tell from their spec sheet, the following features of MSDE 2000 are not available in SQL Express:
* No job scheduler in SQL express. SQLAgent worked fine in MSDE 2000.
* Replication: MSDE for SQL could public and subscribe (as far as I understand), while SQL Express 2005 can only subscribe.
* They've changed the name of DTS to "Enterprise ETL Platform" or SSIS or something. While I haven't tested it out yet, it appears that DTS functionality is limited to basic import and export. For the really useful stuff (DTS to web services, for example) you need the pro edition.
Added:
* A user interface. MSDE 2000 basically had none. If you didn't have visual studio, or a developer's license to MSSQL, or some 3rd party administration and query tool, you basically had to use osql (command line).
* You get 4GB instead of 2GB.
Now, I have access to a few large corporate MS SQL servers, so this shouldn't really be a problem. However, large corporate servers have complex change-control processes.
Consequently, I rely on the desktop editions for all my ad-hoc stuff, development, and stuff that hasn't quite made it to production. I also run a database for a non-profit on MSDE, and was hoping to keep the replication features while moving up to SQL Express.
My motto: "A cat is no trade for integrity."
This must be in satire, or ignorance.
a ger
a ger
/ powerdesigner
Q L%20GUI%20Tools/document_view
Postgresql has a great variety of tools, both OSS and commercial that work great. I've been working on an updated list of all the tools. Here are a few of the most popular admin tools:
PGadminIII
http://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/man
DBvisualizer
http://www.minq.se/products/dbvis/
EMS Postgresql Manager
http://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/man
PHPpgadmin
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phppgadmin
Sybase Power Designer
http://www.sybase.com/products/enterprisemodeling
ERWIN data modeller
http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=260
CASE Studio 2
http://www.casestudio.com/enu/default.aspx
Postgresql has a vibrant tool community. If you want more info on Postgresql tools see
http://techdocs.postgresql.org/v2/Guides/PostgreS
1) 1GB of RAM usage maximum.
2) 1 Processor usabe maximum (unlimited cores though).
3) 4GB total DB size maximum.
There are other limits too, like it can't do some enterprise things like a DB cluster, but the major ones are the size and processing limitation. So it would probably work as a web backend, but wouldn't scale without buying a bigger version.
SQL2005 Prices
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
> Do you have any idea how much Oracle actually costs, compared to a Windows Server licence?
Three years ago I faced a $120k charge to upgrade a four-cpu SQL Server7 server to SQL Server 2000.
Was this cheaper than oracle?
Eh, not really - first off, I could have implemented oracle on a two-way server instead of a four-way and gotten equiv performance (search engine queries). Secondly, I could probably have gotten the oracle licenses down to $20k a cpu.
Oracle now has a *free* low-end database.
These days I'm running a multi-terabyte data warehouse for hundreds of customers on db2 - and it's *far* cheaper than SQL Server. Since db2 bundles most of their top-end capabilities into even the smallest version, I could run my warehouse on the db2 express version for $1500 (total).
So yeah, sometimes sql server is the cheapest solution. But it often isn't.
And then comes the topic of vendor lock-in. With db2 or oracle if you want to move to another database later on it isn't such a big deal. I can move most of my apps between oracle, db2, postgresql, sybase, etc fairly easily. Non-standard sql behavior in mysql are a pain in the butt. And any microsoft *platform* code in mssqlserver are a pain in the butt.
My pet peeve is that bound parameters don't work in subqueries. We have tons of rather sophisticated SQL in our legacy apps; most of them can be rewritten to work on every platform except MSSQL, although often the bound parameter subquery issue can be skirted by rewriting the query as a grouped left outer join.
My other pet peeve is that T-SQL is so danged orthagonal. It's not that you can't do anything you'd want to do in the language (setting aside the things that are supposed to work but don't). It's just that you have to keep going to the manual to find out what construct works in which context.
On the other hand, I think most people using relational databases aren't doing very sophisticated RDBMS stuff -- at least in the DB tier. So for those people integration with the MS toolchain is probably more useful than having capabilities they don't use work.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Forgive me for asking, but if you lace the program up with all sorts of .NET and MS SQL extentions are you not boxing yourself into a corner?
Say I produce a commercial product, why not keep it simple and use ODBC so you can connect to almost anything?
If it is in house, what if the MS machine runs out of juice, can't take any more and one of those larger 8 processor UNIX boxes could do it in a heart beat.
So even if you are a MS only programmer, why limit yourself when it adds so little value? Reminds me of the Pied Piper.
I beta test their software and don't have to pay them to "test" it.
I do pay for MSDN, but that money is going to the developing tools and code I get for the subscription. Hence the DN in MSDN, Developers Network. Also I get access to any MS software released since DOS. The betas of their software is more of a "perk" if you will.
As far as "people who just want to learn the tool before it is released to the public", "just"? It's a friggen business man. If MS opened up all their programs to the public before the release, the world would be using betas and less inclined to use the final product when it got out. Not to mention you guys wouldn't start flaming them for any problems with the software, even IF it were in beta. I've seen tons of flames on Visual Studio 2k5 on Slashdot for months now, and it was just released today.
Try and be a little fair with your MS complaints... I'm sure you don't trash Firefox for crashing on its betas. I mean I understand this is a anti-ms site, but come on. Do you complain about oracle not giving everyone their betas? How about ibm?
Postgres already does this.
evil is as evil does
The name to google for the free limited SQL 2000 engine is MSDE - which stands for MS Data Engine, I think. Note that the limitations have changed between MSDE and the new Express db - overall it's generally similar, i.e it's the same great engine but with limits on size and speed (i.e. processors/clusters). The biggest new "freebie" for me is that the max database size is now 4GB instead of 2GB.
Here's hoping it went through more testing than VS2005 did...
Did you actually use VC2005, or did you just read a crappy blog entry and assume it fact >.<
Here's the scoop: I've used the VC2005 betas for about two months now. They work fine. No, seriously. Never once did I have a crash. Never once did it corrupt my hard drive. And never once did it kill a penguin. Guys, seerisnah.
Granted, it takes a teensy bit longer to boot than EMACS, but it has a lot of nice features. Like the oft-maligned "intellisense" - it's nice having the function/method/class prototypes at your fingertips as you fill in a function. Or the new, secure versions of strcpy(), memcpy(), and others. It can compile code for a wide variety of applications, such as:
It also supports a wide variety of CPUs:
Fairly impressive, all considering. Although I don't write multi-threaded apps, it does have some nice debugging tools for creating them, a nice GUI for those too lazy to write their own resource scripts, and a nifty-as-all-hell IDE. Contrary to popular opinion, it's stable as all hell, has more features than a nerd's Swiss Army Knife and creates fast code. Quite frankly, for those who actually program, it's a dream - and Microsoft released a beta that any of you could have download from http://msdn.microsoft.com/ (The free and fully-functional Beta is closed now. What, you don't regularly check Microsoft Developer's Network here? :-D)
So... All the VC2005 bashing seems to come from a blind hatred of Microsoft (remember, Bill Gates created his empire coding from his garage, like any proper geek would) and a blind belief in anything that will bash Microsoft. If you actually use VC2005, it's wonderful.
But wait, you can! You can download the "Express Edition" free (as in beer) from here. I don't know how much the "Express Edition" differs from the full product, but if you guys are going to whine about something, at least use it first
DATABASE WOW WOW
From Microsoft's page;
SQL Server Express is supported on x64 and EMT64 systems in Windows On Windows (WOW). SQL Server Express is not supported on IA64 systems.
Very interesting....
Umm, Oracle standard edition cost the same as SQL Server standard edition. Oracle lowered the price a while ago. Oracle Enterprise edition costs the same as SQL standard edition, feature-for-feature. However, Oracle offers far more large scale features so you could spend more if you need those features (which most users would not). A 1 processor version of SQL Server Enterprise 2005 costs $24,999.00. You can get a feature-for-feature version of Oracle for that price as well. If you just price out a "maxed-out" Enterprise Oracle, you would probably pay about $40,000 per processor. The features you get with that maxed version exceed SQL Server and actually are not needed by most users. I actually keep telling our Oracle DBA's and our PHB's that we don't need Oracle Enterprise for 99.99% of what we use Oracle for. However, they still buy the Enterprise version of Oracle, just like they keep buying the Enterprise version of SQL Server. I guess they just like to spend company money. The apps we develop would run just as great on the standard versions of Oracle or SQL Server.
It sounds like your just trying to make up stuff. .Net is .Net. The DB layer is abstracted. If you have a DB lib, it all works just as well. MySQL has a great .Net SQL connector. You can even get commercial versions if you want. Notice the nice VS.Net integration in the screen shots? As for PostgreSQL, just do a search on Google and you will find plenty of Open Source as well as commercial .Net providers. Saying SQL Server is "easier" to integrate into .Net is just silly. It makes no sense.
Why would you? SQL Server 2000, was/is a very, very good RDBMS. To me the major flaw is that it is MS-Only. SQL Enterprise Manager was/is a very nice front end. As far as DTS packages go, I guess I have not had the problems you have had. We run tons of DTS packages that trade data between Oracle and SQL Server every night. Many of them are probably starting to kick-off soon. I think the GUI for working with SQL Server is much better then the default for Oracle. However, there are some very powerful tools for Oracle. The apps I have seen our Oracle DBA's run were great.
This seems to be hit or miss. I have been using SQL Server 2005 with Visual Studio 2005 for a while now thanks to MSDN. SQL Server 2005 for me has been either the app didn't need any changes, or the app had .Net compile errors out the wazoo.
Oh, and for those who have always said that Oracle was/is "heavy" and sucked up too much memory? Well, welcome to SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio 2005. I am wondering if MS rewrote Visual Studio 2005 in C# because the startup time sucks and the memory foot-print sucks and the run-time performance sucks. Visual Studio 2005 also changes most everything you are used to with web applications (from VS.Net 2003). You no longer create a new project of type web application, you create/open "web sites". I found this very stupid. To me a project is a project, regardless of the type. I don't want one project type for C# desktop and one for C# web. As for SQL Server 2005, the memory usage is not much different than Oracle. I remember always complaining about how an O
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Incorrect. I quote:
40. Does Visual C++ 2005 Express include the "optimizing compiler"? Yes, Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition includes the same core optimizing compiler that will be included with all other Visual Studio 2005 editions. Some new expanded optimization features, including Profile Guided Optimizations, will be available only in the Professional and above editions of Visual Studio 2005.
You do know that the c# stored procedures have embedded SQL in them, just like other code that acesses the database, right? And that wrapping SQL in C# for a simple query will never ever be faster or simpler?
What this is aimed at is stored procedures that to complex calculation and processing, or anything where the stored proc is forced to use a cursor or a DLL call.
For set-oriented data manipulation, SQL will always be a better language, and this remains so for the majority of stored procedures. Sure, some VB weenies are going abuse C# stored procs through ignorance, but as you have demonstrated, ignorance is universal.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
On behalf of the non-heterosexual people I know who are not in any way useless, failures, bad, irritating, enfuriating, or a let down: gay isn't an appropriate word to insult a crap computer program. My friends are cool and using 'gay' as a derogatory term is either an illustration of a prejudice or the lack of a vocabulary on your part.