5 ms·

Microsoft SQL Server 2008 is, by far, a vastly superior RDBMS than most anything I have seen from anyone, in every respect I was willing to continue reading th

by asnyder 17y ago

Microsoft SQL Server 2008 is, by far, a vastly superior RDBMS than most anything I have seen from anyone, in every respect I was willing to continue reading the article, up to the above line, at which point it became clear that there's no basis for anything said.

StrawberryFrog 17y ago
Which ones do you think is one a par with it, and why? "vastly" may be an overstatement, but it's very good. The only issue is that for simple designs a smaller, free product (e.g. postgreSQL) may have all that you need. A lot of the new stuff in SQL server seems to be Business Intelligence tools, which I don't pay much attention too. the SQL stuff where you "select * from ...." seems to be much the same for several versions now, and gets only minor updates since it's already done right.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  Well, while SQL Server has its merits, I wouldn't consider it vastly superior (or superior at all) to Oracle or IBM DB2, although SQL Server 2008 is indeed getting very close. Of course it depends on your requirements; for most purposes MSSQL is perhaps a better choice but if I needed an enterprisey-schwenterprisey zero downtime database server no matter what it costs, then of course I would go for Oracle or DB2.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    Do you have bad experiences with MSSQL (or any other popular RDBMS) in an enterprisey environment ? The only RDBMS I worked with that was too limited for the enterprise ... is MySql. But that's because when you have a "Big Ball of Mud" it is easier to patch many things in the data-store and MySql has bad support for stored procedures / triggers / views and I also wouldn't trust it to store a data warehouse. But Postgresql was more than suitable for such a scenario. MSSQL is also more than adequate for any task you might have. I've seen this argument many times before ... that Oracle is more reliable. But with Oracle unless you have a DBA with years of experience to administer it, you're pretty much screwed. And a RDBMS that requires so much tweaking and maintenance just to keep it working doesn't seem so reliable to me. True story ... while working at Adobe I participated in meetings about the future of Oracle at the company. Long story short: the company holds much of its data on 2 big Oracle servers and the problem with the setup is that it doesn't scale horizontally. And many newer projects are using Mysql, because it has a good-enough replication system and it also has a hidden gem (mysql proxy). It seems to me (at least as an outside observer ... I'm not a professional DBA) that these are just effects of marketing campaigns.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- asnyder 17y ago
  Databases such as Oracle, and DB2 are either equal or better in certain respects. Furthermore, I personally find PostgreSQL to be on par if not better than MSSQL. Aside from PostgreSQL's inability to return multiple recordsets, IMHO it's easier to write stored procedures, functions, views, and triggers in PostgreSQL. In addition PostgreSQL is significantly more consistent syntacticly. Every so often my brother who works for an MS shop will ask me how to do something relatively complex in MSSQL, I'll show him how, but in addition I'll also show him how much easier it would've been in PostgreSQL. One can argue that when working with SQL Server Studio you don't have to worry about how to do things since the IDE will create most of what you need. However, the same can be said of decent IDEs for PostgreSQL, such as EMS. Personally, I like the ability to read my functions, views, and triggers, and be able to easily understand what's happening; which is not something I usually experience when working with MSSQL.
  - StrawberryFrog 17y ago
    I last used Oracle circa 2002. The experience of using the SQL workbench tools, and installing a new server was far worse, just awful compared to the SQL Server equivalent.
    - ams6110 17y ago
      Oracle's tools and installers are still not what you'd expect for the price. They are vastly improved from 2002 however.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
All the research I've seen shows Microsoft consistently in the top three as far as sales, and in the top two as far as sales on the windows platform. This has held true over many, many years. Got some points you'd like to make that amount to something?
- tvon 17y ago
  Sales don't magically equate to better technology or a superior product.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    So? At the very least they amount to people doing due dilligence and making the best choice they can. Now you can argue all those people don't really know what they're doing, and you sit in a position of actually knowing they're making a mistake, but that's all so much posturing now, isn't it? The point is, I'm providing stats, facts, information. It's great to be able to argue their relevance, because it's great to have something more than an unfounded opinion to base a discussion on. Which is my point.
    - makecheck 17y ago
      Please offer us some more statistics and facts, then. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of value in sales figures. Remember that Microsoft is huge, with a ridiculous number of resources, and control of a dominant platform; they would have to be completely incompetent not to achieve high sales figures, especially on their own turf. Here would be a more interesting statistic: can you show a case where a business or university IT department spent several weeks evaluating a number of competing products in detail, and concluded (complete with spreadsheets) that Microsoft's solution was undoubtedly the cheapest and most robust long-term investment?
    - tvon 17y ago
      > So? That seemed to be your point. > At the very least they amount to people doing due dilligence and making the best choice they can. No, it doesn't mean that, especially not if they follow your reasoning which I don't doubt a lot of them do. It also seems like you're still pushing the same point, that sales numbers mean a better product. > Now you can argue all those people don't really know what they're doing, and you sit in a position of actually knowing they're making a mistake, but that's all so much posturing now, isn't it? So... because these people are in a position to buy software, they must be making the correct choices? To question the meaning of the SQL server sales figures is posturing? That's some blind faith in "people who buy things". Odds are most people who have purchased MSSQL did so because they are hooking it up to Exchange or IIS in a company that is all Microsoft from top to bottom. Is this such a horrible thing? No. Like they say, nobody was ever fired for buying Microsoft. Does any of this mean that Exchange or IIS or MSSQL are better than the alternatives? No, it just means they are the safe and easy choices for people who make software purchases. > The point is, I'm providing stats, facts, information. It's great to be able to argue their relevance, because it's great to have something more than an unfounded opinion to base a discussion on. You're providing irrelevant stats, facts, information, and offering up an unfounded opinion that "higher sales mean a better product". > Which is my point. It may have been your intent, but it was not your point, at least not the point you seem to keep trying to make.

by asnyder 17y ago

StrawberryFrog 17y ago

Which ones do you think is one a par with it, and why? "vastly" may be an overstatement, but it's very good. The only issue is that for simple designs a smaller, free product (e.g. postgreSQL) may have all that you need. A lot of the new stuff in SQL server seems to be Business Intelligence tools, which I don't pay much attention too. the SQL stuff where you "select * from ...." seems to be much the same for several versions now, and gets only minor updates since it's already done right.

DrJokepu 17y ago
Well, while SQL Server has its merits, I wouldn't consider it vastly superior (or superior at all) to Oracle or IBM DB2, although SQL Server 2008 is indeed getting very close. Of course it depends on your requirements; for most purposes MSSQL is perhaps a better choice but if I needed an enterprisey-schwenterprisey zero downtime database server no matter what it costs, then of course I would go for Oracle or DB2.
- bad_user 17y ago
  Do you have bad experiences with MSSQL (or any other popular RDBMS) in an enterprisey environment ? The only RDBMS I worked with that was too limited for the enterprise ... is MySql. But that's because when you have a "Big Ball of Mud" it is easier to patch many things in the data-store and MySql has bad support for stored procedures / triggers / views and I also wouldn't trust it to store a data warehouse. But Postgresql was more than suitable for such a scenario. MSSQL is also more than adequate for any task you might have. I've seen this argument many times before ... that Oracle is more reliable. But with Oracle unless you have a DBA with years of experience to administer it, you're pretty much screwed. And a RDBMS that requires so much tweaking and maintenance just to keep it working doesn't seem so reliable to me. True story ... while working at Adobe I participated in meetings about the future of Oracle at the company. Long story short: the company holds much of its data on 2 big Oracle servers and the problem with the setup is that it doesn't scale horizontally. And many newer projects are using Mysql, because it has a good-enough replication system and it also has a hidden gem (mysql proxy). It seems to me (at least as an outside observer ... I'm not a professional DBA) that these are just effects of marketing campaigns.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
asnyder 17y ago
Databases such as Oracle, and DB2 are either equal or better in certain respects. Furthermore, I personally find PostgreSQL to be on par if not better than MSSQL. Aside from PostgreSQL's inability to return multiple recordsets, IMHO it's easier to write stored procedures, functions, views, and triggers in PostgreSQL. In addition PostgreSQL is significantly more consistent syntacticly. Every so often my brother who works for an MS shop will ask me how to do something relatively complex in MSSQL, I'll show him how, but in addition I'll also show him how much easier it would've been in PostgreSQL. One can argue that when working with SQL Server Studio you don't have to worry about how to do things since the IDE will create most of what you need. However, the same can be said of decent IDEs for PostgreSQL, such as EMS. Personally, I like the ability to read my functions, views, and triggers, and be able to easily understand what's happening; which is not something I usually experience when working with MSSQL.
- StrawberryFrog 17y ago
  I last used Oracle circa 2002. The experience of using the SQL workbench tools, and installing a new server was far worse, just awful compared to the SQL Server equivalent.
  - ams6110 17y ago
    Oracle's tools and installers are still not what you'd expect for the price. They are vastly improved from 2002 however.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

All the research I've seen shows Microsoft consistently in the top three as far as sales, and in the top two as far as sales on the windows platform. This has held true over many, many years. Got some points you'd like to make that amount to something?

tvon 17y ago
Sales don't magically equate to better technology or a superior product.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  So? At the very least they amount to people doing due dilligence and making the best choice they can. Now you can argue all those people don't really know what they're doing, and you sit in a position of actually knowing they're making a mistake, but that's all so much posturing now, isn't it? The point is, I'm providing stats, facts, information. It's great to be able to argue their relevance, because it's great to have something more than an unfounded opinion to base a discussion on. Which is my point.
  - makecheck 17y ago
    Please offer us some more statistics and facts, then. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of value in sales figures. Remember that Microsoft is huge, with a ridiculous number of resources, and control of a dominant platform; they would have to be completely incompetent not to achieve high sales figures, especially on their own turf. Here would be a more interesting statistic: can you show a case where a business or university IT department spent several weeks evaluating a number of competing products in detail, and concluded (complete with spreadsheets) that Microsoft's solution was undoubtedly the cheapest and most robust long-term investment?
  - tvon 17y ago
    > So? That seemed to be your point. > At the very least they amount to people doing due dilligence and making the best choice they can. No, it doesn't mean that, especially not if they follow your reasoning which I don't doubt a lot of them do. It also seems like you're still pushing the same point, that sales numbers mean a better product. > Now you can argue all those people don't really know what they're doing, and you sit in a position of actually knowing they're making a mistake, but that's all so much posturing now, isn't it? So... because these people are in a position to buy software, they must be making the correct choices? To question the meaning of the SQL server sales figures is posturing? That's some blind faith in "people who buy things". Odds are most people who have purchased MSSQL did so because they are hooking it up to Exchange or IIS in a company that is all Microsoft from top to bottom. Is this such a horrible thing? No. Like they say, nobody was ever fired for buying Microsoft. Does any of this mean that Exchange or IIS or MSSQL are better than the alternatives? No, it just means they are the safe and easy choices for people who make software purchases. > The point is, I'm providing stats, facts, information. It's great to be able to argue their relevance, because it's great to have something more than an unfounded opinion to base a discussion on. You're providing irrelevant stats, facts, information, and offering up an unfounded opinion that "higher sales mean a better product". > Which is my point. It may have been your intent, but it was not your point, at least not the point you seem to keep trying to make.