Talk:Microsoft SQL Server
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Fix the Version History
This is wrong:
1999 - SQL S, codenamed Yukon (version 9.0)
1999 is the SQL 2000 release (8.0), 2005 is the SQL 2005 release (version 9.0, codename Yukon)
69.116.249.76 23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bugs in SQL Server
I'm not really sure, but I believe subscription (replication) and database mirroring are buggy in SP1. I've tried resolving it using the forums and followed troubleshooting procedures & step-by-step guides. I'm using SQL Enterprise Edition & Developer Edition, both at version 9.0.2047. Has anyone been able to get these to work with the version I'm using? Or perhaps using the Developer edition as the primary, and the Enterprise edition as the secondary just doesn't work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K nitin r (talk • contribs).
- This is not the place to troubleshoot programming issues. Try the microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication newsgroup ([1] or [2]). You can report bugs in SQL Server on the Microsoft Connect site. Razvan Socol 12:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] locking
This is good. I'm extremely curious to the experiment that can cause a lock to occur. Hmmm... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.255.219 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Why mySQL, PostgreSQL so unpopular?
1) In what technical ways is MS-SQL, Oracle, and Sybase better then PostgreSQL or mySQL?
2) When looking at sites like http://www.technewsworld.com/story/20968.html - the marketshare of Oracle and MS-SQL is quite significant. Appart from any technical advantages, why dont open alternatives get deployed more?
3) In what situations are any technical advantages of MS-SQL, Oracle or Sybase databases really crucial in a company?
Its just looking at the available products on the market, particularly opensource ones, many support mySQL, and some support postgreSQL. Including modules for most programming languages to control them. Both seem to be quite commercially ready, would like to hear some answers to the above questions. --Hackeron 20:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Quite a few reasons. The open source databases aren't as scalable as MSSQL or Oracle. In the free databases support for clustering is less mature or nonexistent, for example. There are more professionals trained to use and manage Oracle and MSSQL. There's also a perception by management that "you get what you pay for," which is becoming less prevalent. In many cases open source databases are as good as the commercial ones, but for large installations they are usually not an option. MySQL still doesn't support stored procedures. Rhobite 20:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Some points of interest which may help to address question 3. The commercial offerings all address three major questions in (roughly) the order: Data Integrity, Developer Features, Performance. Broadly speaking other features come within these categories (clustering = performance, security = developer features and so on).
By Data Integrity, I'm talking about ACID compliance, failing to accept invalid data, backups, transaction logs. By Developer Features I'm talking about stored procedures, views, data dictionary commands, GUI tools, APIs and so on. Performance is, I hope, fairly self explanatory.
The open source databases tend to have excellent performance, but lacking in the first two points. They're getting there, but I really don't think that the reluctance of management to commit to date has been misplaced. For example, MySQL does not fully support transactions with standard SQL. It silently accepts invalid data as default values instead of raising errors. PostgreSQL on the other hand provides a coarser level of permissions on objects, less elegant partitioning of databases. And so on. There are a number of other open source databases but my (uneducated) impression is that they have similar deficiencies.
I hope that answers some of the questions raised; I'm a devoted user of PostgreSQL and hugely appreciative of MySQL, so please don't assume that I'm opposed to them on non-technical grounds; I try to keep current with the state of each and I'm really looking forward to being able to recommend them to large clients in the future. Currently my money's on PostgreSQL, but it's a very difficult call so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see MySQL leapfrog ahead.
I would be very interested to see some detailed discourse on the feature disparities between the various proprietary and open source databases, but I suspect this article is not the place for it! --Dcminter 10:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- PostgreSQL is a real PITA to use. MySQL is just bad news... the fact that they thought that Foreign Keys were a bad idea at one point in its development just screams incompetence. Both of those OSS DBs are nowhere near mature enough to really use in business applications. DoomBringer 14:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that they are not as mature as commercial products, but they are still "really used" in many business applications and for many large-scale websites. Rhobite 04:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sybase teamed with Microsoft to compete against itself?
Well, that's what it says:
- "The code base for Microsoft SQL Server originated in Sybase SQL Server, and was Microsoft's entry to the enterprise-level database market, competing against Oracle, IBM, and Sybase.
Microsoft, Sybase and Ashton-Tate teamed up to create and market the first version named SQL Server 4.2..."
Can somebody make any sense out of this? conio.h • talk 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If you think back to when 4.2 was released, its back in the NT 3.0 days, Sybase did not have an offering for Windows hence the collaboration; there where market stipulations about not competing directly with Sybase; Microsoft version was (and still is) Windows only. Perhaps Sybase just didn't see Windows growing into the dominant operating system it is now, and certainly didn't the growth in MS SQL Server coming! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.180.177 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Excuse my boldness
I removed the section that gave a "market analysis", since Wikipedia is no place for such material. We could list the major competitors, but no "analysis" should be attached. I also removed the "Future development" section, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the development has happened and something actually exists, we can include it. Haakon 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Future Development is not disqualified by "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", because not editor is making any predictions here. It is a fully authentic (and referenced) statement made by developers doing the Future Development. So, it is not a prediction made by some obscure black magic (or crystal ball or whatever you feel like) but some real stuff. I am readding it (not sure about market analysis though). If you still feel it should be removed, let sort it out here first. --soUmyaSch 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is true that Microsoft has publically announced their plans, but plans are not facts from the future. I rewrote the section slightly to reflect this. Haakon 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Features
Theres nothing in this article that deescribes the features and capabilites of SQL server. Its sorely missed. --soUmyaSch 13:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] relational database rewrite
I am trying to rewrite relational database and am soliciting opinions. I am particularly interested in bringing in the practical and popular definitions of the term to counter the current article's domination by the "theoretical" crowd. Ideogram 11:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead, I will review it as you progress. However, I feel, its "theoretical" content should not be given the boot in lieu of practically relevant info. --soumসৌমোyasch 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh, I hope to include their perspective, certainly. But the POV of Codd and Date that no current databases are relational is and should be presented as a minority view. Ideogram 11:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sql-server-performance.com link
Bradmcgehee insists on having a link to his site, [3]. See his arguments at my talk page and at Soumyasch's. I think the site is very advertising heavy without adding much to the links we already have. I have reverted him based on this, and others have reverted as well, so I think there is consensus against this link. It seems it should be argued here, though, and I won't engage in any revert war. Thoughts? Haakon 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
www.sql-server-performance.com, which I am the webmaster of, was started in June 2000. It currently is the largest community on the Internet devoted to SQL Server performance tuning, receiving over 250,000 unique visitors a month. The website does have advertising to support it, but it also has over 1,000 pages of original content, totalling over 1,000,000 words of original content. The advertising pays for the dedicated server and bandwidth. The website also includes a very active user forum. In fact, if you post a question in the forum, you will get an answer in hours. If a link to my website does not fit the proper criteria for inclusion, then none of the links already in the article fit the criteria. A link to my webiste greatly adds to the value of the content on this page. SQL Server performance tuning is a very big topic, which is a topic not covered in the article, nor by the other websites currently linked by the article. Also, besides Haakon, only one other person removed my link, not "others" as described above. Brad M. McGehee, 6-15-2006 User:Bradmcgehee
Hm, if Wikipedia is not a link directory, have you ever searched for "Playmate"? You'll get a nice listing of a whole bunch of them, following the links you'll see the homepage of Playboy is almost always linked there. I believe Playboy.com is what I would call a merely commercial site which also doesn't add much to what Wikipedia should be about. But still it is listed here. Why?
SQL-Server-Performance.com surely has advertising. But that's absolutely okay, since you are free to ignore the ads. And the site and its content is free. You don't have to register somewhere to read the content. To cut a long story short, I don't get you point removing the link here. -- 2006-06-15 Frank Kalis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frank Kalis (talk • contribs).
- Note: user's first edit. My intent was to gather consensus from Wikipedia editors, not from sql-server-performance.com users [4]. Haakon 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't intended to be a link directory. That's the defined policy. If you see such a thing elsewhere on Wikipedia, you don't hold that up as an example of what you feel you should be doing. Please help Wikipedia by contributing to the encyclopedia, instead of by advertising other web sites. Thanks. Warrens 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- ----
- You know, guys like you are a great example of why someone shouldn't pay too much attention to Wikipedia. Ever thought of being contraproductive? ;-)
- 2006-06-16 Frank Kalis
- ----
Anyone can be an editor in Wikipedia, whether they are users of SQL-Server-Performance.Com or not. Their opinion is as good as any other's opinion. In fact, it may be a better opinion as they are familiar with SQL Server and the website. --Brad M. McGehee, 6-15-2006 User:Bradmcgehee
Sqlserver-qa 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)SQL-Server-Performance.com website is for a genuine reason help the SQL Server community and resolve the user problems by hosting numerous articles, topics and forums too. It is one of the best served website within the SQL Server community. The basic criteria for having an entry in WiKi is to keep informed about the SQL Server related communities.
- Note: user's first edit. Haakon 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia's External Links guidelines, links that are to be normally avoided those that promote a site. You are definitely using the article to promote the site. Also, sites with objectionable amounts of advertising are avoided. Your site also doesn't hold ground against this. Also blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. You yourself said you are hosting forums. And most importantly, you are to avoid a website that you own or maintain. And you've also said, the site contains over 1,000 pages of original content. Are you sure that does not violate Wikipedia's policy against Original Research. Do you have other verifiable NPOV notable sources backing up what you claim in the articles?
And if the site is as important as you claim to be, why does it need this article as a vector for promotion - it should be able to stand on its own!
One more thing: I can play this game all day with you, but I will put the back every day and every hour if I have to. Such attitude and you will have your editing privileges stripped off in no time. You do not own any article, you are merely an editor in a group of all wikipedians. Being pushy about your own version when there are many independent objections to your edits will only alienate editors against you. If you undo revertions back to your changes more than 3 times a day, you will be blocked from further editing. So please contribute harmoniously. If yu feel any information in the article is missing (note, not Links or Promotions) why not add it directly. Also, remember, that most of the readers of the articles are not DBAs, and have no interest in knowing how to do performance tuning. --soumসৌমোyasch 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
---
Hi , I am Dinesh Asanka contributing editor to the www.sql-server-performance.com. This is the only site that is devoted to sql server performance. This site is one of the few sites that give users answers in few minutes. Among the moderators there are microsoft MVPs. So I don't think it will require that much of analysis to say www.sql-server-performance.com link should exists there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.247.234.93 (talk • contribs).
Life is too short for dealing with self-appointed moralists, such as those which hang out at Wikipedia. The world has way too many of these. Look at Hitler, Sadam Hussein, and more of the same ilk. Who needs Wikipedia? Guys and girls, get a life! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bradmcgehee (talk • contribs).
---
As a compromise, perhaps this link could be added: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/community/relcommunities.mspx
- Communities are generally user responses. As such they fail Wikipedia's policy of original research. Hence they cant be included here, even if its operated by the company producing the software. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- OR applies to article content, not to sites linked to on articles. Though there may be other grounds for removing this link, OR is not one of them.Cadr 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is an excellent idea. That way you get equal coverage of all communities, without having to repeat the links in the article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sql mvp (talk • contribs).
[edit] Biztalk Server 2006 and SQL Server 2005
They were not released alongside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StefanPapp (talk • contribs).
[edit] Page organization
This article feels awkward with a note about the slammer virus in the middle. Could it be organized differently to include a section on threats to MS SQL 2000?
76.187.219.94 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compact and Embedded editions
... which come with Visual Studio Orcas and Windows SharePoint Services V3 are not described at all. --82.179.218.10 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
