5 ms·

I guess it is easier to get rid of Windows than it is to get rid of SQL Server.

by wictory 10y ago

oblio 10y ago
There are few things which can be more embedded in your app's architecture than the data store, especially if the initial (and reasonable) assumption is that you won't ever switch away from it.
paol 10y ago
It probably is, but there's an even better reason: Windows may be worth getting rid of, SQL Server isn't (except perhaps on grounds of licensing cost) I've worked with all major RDBMS systems at one point or another and SQLS is by far the nicest.
- bartread 10y ago
  I concur. It's not the most powerful in all aspects or for all applications but, most of the time, if you want an enterprise grade RDBMS (and you're happy to pay) it's the one to go for simply because by comparison with the others it's so easy to work with. The ease of use also makes it suitable for smaller shops as well. At the lowest level you install it, and it just works, and it's back by a great tooling ecosystem, and excellent documentation. It really does stand in absolutely stark contrast to, for example, Oracle. I wouldn't call it idiot-proof, but it's certainly friendlier than most RDBMS. (That's not to say there aren't issues and annoyances with it, mind, but that's true of any product.) Beyond this, if you need a relational store and you really, really don't want to have to give a monkey's about it, I'd say SQL Azure is probably the way to go. (Saying all of this I recognise that lots of people will be able to tell war stories about the torrid time they had with SQL Server, or for any other data store. My experience has largely been it's a winner though.)
  - endymi0n 10y ago
    Anyone care to elaborate on how well it has aged? When I last used SQL Server in 2010, it was indeed pretty cool, especially the awesome ecosystem (SQL Studio, Reporting Services, graphical Query Planner, etc.). Then I went to MySQL because my startup couldn't afford a database and it was a pretty large step down. Then at the next startup, I got used to PostgreSQL and by now I'd have a pretty hard time to not being able to use JSONB, window functions or CTEs - made me realize how bad most other DB systems are by now. That is, except for a really nice GUI for PostgreSQL I'm a pretty happy camper by now. How has SQL Server kept up in the meantime?
    - paol 10y ago
      No idea about JSONB, but CTEs and window functions are common features in most systems, SQL Server included.
    - Steeeve 10y ago
      IMO, it's matured very well. I'm always surprised by how good performance is in a virtualized environment compared with Oracle using the same front-end enterprise applications. The biggest advantage IMO is that you can get strong performance out of SQL Server with relatively little DBA knowledge compared with Oracle. Installation is easy, integrated authentication is easy, and backups are easy. Running a cluster and doing replication is an area that all RDBMS systems need serious improvement on, but initial setup and working with a relatively stagnant schema is straightforward. The one area that SQL Server has been lacking is having a native linux client (which is hopefully alleviated now). Not having one is the only real drawback that I run into.
      - bartread 10y ago
        Absolutely agree on the performance front. If you're starting out, generally SQL Server will run well out of the box, and if you upgrade hardware and reinstall on the new hardware it'll generally work well without having to do anything else. At some point you might have to start thinking about I/O and how best to arrange files but maybe not for a while, depending on what you're doing. (Just to be clear, let me restate: I'm talking starting out here - this is obviously NOT the approach you'd take when building or upgrading a large, complex application - I'm talking basic CRUDdy type apps here.) Contrast this with some of the NoSQL platforms where immediately you're forced to think about topics such as sharding and clustering (I'm looking at you Couchbase) and the pain in the ass factor is much lower. Key point: you don't need much of a clue about SQL Server administration to start using it, but you perhaps do with Couchbase, Elasticsearch, etc. From an ease of use point of view with NoSQL, I'd probably point to MongoDB as having the most approachable learning curve. There's also no BS about having to keep everything in memory to keep performance acceptable (I'm looking at you, again, Couchbase - that's two strikes). The whole point of SQL Server and other RDBMSs is that they continue to work well when the amount of data you need to store vastly outweighs the amount of physical memory you have. Of course, if you can get everything into physical memory it will perform better but, even if you can't, it will still perform well. Of course, if you're using SQL Server you do need to learn SQL (true for any RDBMS), which can be off-putting. It's absolutely not a beautiful language - in fact it's bloody aggravating when you write a lot of it - but it is extremely powerful and excellent for working with sets of data arranged in rows (i.e., tables). Nothing else really comes close.
- krylon 10y ago
  > Windows may be worth getting rid of, SQL Server isn't (except perhaps on grounds of licensing cost) I second that. I am not a big fan of Windows, but SQL Server has not given me the slightest trouble so far, except in cases where I was kind of asking for it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hobarrera 10y ago
  > SQL Server isn't (except perhaps on grounds of licensing cost) What about supported applications? Most apps I've worked with (eg: django) support MSSQL as a second-class citizen, while other (eg: postgres) are much better supported.
  - bdcravens 10y ago
    Speaking to some folks from Microsoft at RubyConf last year, I know they are actively bringing in developers for the various adapters to try to improve this story. I believe this is a matter of the frameworks choosing first-class support rather than Microsoft. (been running a Rails app backed by a large "legacy" SQL Server for 3-4 years)
    - hobarrera 10y ago
      > I believe this is a matter of the frameworks choosing first-class support rather than Microsoft. The problem has generally been the license and the environment. Any framework wanting to support MSSQL needed to have MS Windows and MSSQL licences for CI (+developers), plus the infrastructure to run windows on the CI (I've no idea how you'd do that, so there's also a knowledge barrier). Hopefully this will change now.

I guess it is easier to get rid of Windows than it is to get rid of SQL Server.

by wictory 10y ago

I guess it is easier to get rid of Windows than it is to get rid of SQL Server.

oblio 10y ago

There are few things which can be more embedded in your app's architecture than the data store, especially if the initial (and reasonable) assumption is that you won't ever switch away from it.

paol 10y ago

It probably is, but there's an even better reason: Windows may be worth getting rid of, SQL Server isn't (except perhaps on grounds of licensing cost) I've worked with all major RDBMS systems at one point or another and SQLS is by far the nicest.

bartread 10y ago
I concur. It's not the most powerful in all aspects or for all applications but, most of the time, if you want an enterprise grade RDBMS (and you're happy to pay) it's the one to go for simply because by comparison with the others it's so easy to work with. The ease of use also makes it suitable for smaller shops as well. At the lowest level you install it, and it just works, and it's back by a great tooling ecosystem, and excellent documentation. It really does stand in absolutely stark contrast to, for example, Oracle. I wouldn't call it idiot-proof, but it's certainly friendlier than most RDBMS. (That's not to say there aren't issues and annoyances with it, mind, but that's true of any product.) Beyond this, if you need a relational store and you really, really don't want to have to give a monkey's about it, I'd say SQL Azure is probably the way to go. (Saying all of this I recognise that lots of people will be able to tell war stories about the torrid time they had with SQL Server, or for any other data store. My experience has largely been it's a winner though.)
- endymi0n 10y ago
  Anyone care to elaborate on how well it has aged? When I last used SQL Server in 2010, it was indeed pretty cool, especially the awesome ecosystem (SQL Studio, Reporting Services, graphical Query Planner, etc.). Then I went to MySQL because my startup couldn't afford a database and it was a pretty large step down. Then at the next startup, I got used to PostgreSQL and by now I'd have a pretty hard time to not being able to use JSONB, window functions or CTEs - made me realize how bad most other DB systems are by now. That is, except for a really nice GUI for PostgreSQL I'm a pretty happy camper by now. How has SQL Server kept up in the meantime?
  - paol 10y ago
    No idea about JSONB, but CTEs and window functions are common features in most systems, SQL Server included.
  - Steeeve 10y ago
    IMO, it's matured very well. I'm always surprised by how good performance is in a virtualized environment compared with Oracle using the same front-end enterprise applications. The biggest advantage IMO is that you can get strong performance out of SQL Server with relatively little DBA knowledge compared with Oracle. Installation is easy, integrated authentication is easy, and backups are easy. Running a cluster and doing replication is an area that all RDBMS systems need serious improvement on, but initial setup and working with a relatively stagnant schema is straightforward. The one area that SQL Server has been lacking is having a native linux client (which is hopefully alleviated now). Not having one is the only real drawback that I run into.
    - bartread 10y ago
      Absolutely agree on the performance front. If you're starting out, generally SQL Server will run well out of the box, and if you upgrade hardware and reinstall on the new hardware it'll generally work well without having to do anything else. At some point you might have to start thinking about I/O and how best to arrange files but maybe not for a while, depending on what you're doing. (Just to be clear, let me restate: I'm talking starting out here - this is obviously NOT the approach you'd take when building or upgrading a large, complex application - I'm talking basic CRUDdy type apps here.) Contrast this with some of the NoSQL platforms where immediately you're forced to think about topics such as sharding and clustering (I'm looking at you Couchbase) and the pain in the ass factor is much lower. Key point: you don't need much of a clue about SQL Server administration to start using it, but you perhaps do with Couchbase, Elasticsearch, etc. From an ease of use point of view with NoSQL, I'd probably point to MongoDB as having the most approachable learning curve. There's also no BS about having to keep everything in memory to keep performance acceptable (I'm looking at you, again, Couchbase - that's two strikes). The whole point of SQL Server and other RDBMSs is that they continue to work well when the amount of data you need to store vastly outweighs the amount of physical memory you have. Of course, if you can get everything into physical memory it will perform better but, even if you can't, it will still perform well. Of course, if you're using SQL Server you do need to learn SQL (true for any RDBMS), which can be off-putting. It's absolutely not a beautiful language - in fact it's bloody aggravating when you write a lot of it - but it is extremely powerful and excellent for working with sets of data arranged in rows (i.e., tables). Nothing else really comes close.
krylon 10y ago
> Windows may be worth getting rid of, SQL Server isn't (except perhaps on grounds of licensing cost) I second that. I am not a big fan of Windows, but SQL Server has not given me the slightest trouble so far, except in cases where I was kind of asking for it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hobarrera 10y ago
> SQL Server isn't (except perhaps on grounds of licensing cost) What about supported applications? Most apps I've worked with (eg: django) support MSSQL as a second-class citizen, while other (eg: postgres) are much better supported.
- bdcravens 10y ago
  Speaking to some folks from Microsoft at RubyConf last year, I know they are actively bringing in developers for the various adapters to try to improve this story. I believe this is a matter of the frameworks choosing first-class support rather than Microsoft. (been running a Rails app backed by a large "legacy" SQL Server for 3-4 years)
  - hobarrera 10y ago
    > I believe this is a matter of the frameworks choosing first-class support rather than Microsoft. The problem has generally been the license and the environment. Any framework wanting to support MSSQL needed to have MS Windows and MSSQL licences for CI (+developers), plus the infrastructure to run windows on the CI (I've no idea how you'd do that, so there's also a knowledge barrier). Hopefully this will change now.