Home > Databases > Microsoft releases SQL Server 2005 betaMicrosoft releases SQL Server 2005 beta Eugenia Loli 2004-07-26 Databases 20 CommentsMicrosoft began a wide beta testing program of its forthcoming SQL Server 2005 database on Monday, a much anticipated–and delayed–product central to the company’s server software line. About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 20 Comments 2004-07-26 6:45 pm Define better? How do you know it’s better if it’s still in beta? Hasn’t been tested in real production so keep your Microsoft zombie comments until it’s been proven. Past versions of their databases lacked much of what DB2 and Oracle provided. For one not many companies would/did use it for terabyte databases. 2004-07-26 6:49 pm Past versions of their databases lacked much of what DB2 and Oracle provided.Yes and DB2 and Oracle are also not in the same price range as MS SQL Server. I’m not a Microsoft fan-boy by any means but I have to admit that SQL Server is one of their better server products. (Especially in comparison to IIS and Exchange!) My workplace has several homebrew apps that run on SQL Server without a hitch. Performance and reliability are quite excellent from my (admittedly limited) experience with SQL Server. 2004-07-26 6:57 pm “Yes and DB2 and Oracle are also not in the same price range as MS SQL Server.”Maybe true at one time, However Oracle has come out with more price ranges depending on what kind of business you run. They offer a 800-1000 $ version for small business that does’t have all the bells and whistles the Enterprise version offers. This was to counter the issue that SQL Server was so much cheaper, atleast in box price for small to meduim business. So I think in this time and age it’s all about you has what features. If your a microsoft shop SQL Server will probably be great. However it only runs on Windows OS. Where other databases run on many platformsHaving more options is never a bad thing for any customer however and this is another option. 2004-07-26 7:01 pm Who said anything about beta… I was replying to Ignacio’s wonderful comment.The current version of SQL Server is doing quite well… in fact Microsoft’s share in the DB market is growing quite well:http://news.com.com/Database+sales+bouncing+back/2100-7344_3-522111…How do you know that many companies are not using it for terabyte data??I guess you can only post comments here if you bash MS other wise it’s just “Microsoft Zombie comments”. 2004-07-26 7:17 pm Ok for the 20 or so companies that I had friends at or had done work for that used SQL server non of these database were very large(relatively). Max size was 20 gigs. The 30+ companies I did work for or had freinds at had terabyte databases using Oracle, of course so of these databases were only a gig but many were much larger. This is person experince not science that I was refering too.I won’t sit here and argue things that are not proven by a scientific means. But my personal experince and readings lead me to believe Oracle and DB2 up to this point can handle larger volumes of data much more effectivly for many many different reasons.Once again I will say it to you. I think having options is a good thing and I’m sure SQL Server 2005 will provide and fix many things. 2004-07-26 7:20 pm To add to that you can take any companies market share and burn it in a fire pit I don’t care. It has very little meaning when it comes to the ability of a product.Market share has nothing to do with how much data a database can handle. 2004-07-26 7:54 pm “Market share has nothing to do with how much data a database can handle.”Really! Gee I didn’t know that!Market share does show that companies are adopting a technogy, in this case SQl Server… 2004-07-26 8:25 pm “Market share does show that companies are adopting a technogy, in this case SQl Server…”Back at you! Gee I didn’t know that!It doesn’t tell you what they are doing with it.Again I have no problem that SQL Server is doing well and that 2005 version will be out someday. More options are better. 2004-07-26 9:38 pm “Currently Randy has the privilege of working on one of the world’s largest SQL Server “read-world” production installations at Verizon Communications for Verizon’s billing project. Verizon has 11 main databases totaling over 9 Terabytes of data, with the largest single database over 2.2 Terabytes. His current position is as a development DBA, developing new Transact-SQL code and enhancing existing code.”http://www.sql-server-performance.com/randy_dyess.aspWhere I work we have about 50 SQL Server databases over two active-passive clusters, the largest database being 63 gigs… 2004-07-26 10:36 pm SQL server is still way overpriced for small business.Most banks and what not do not need M$ SQL server for their internal developement.Actually Postgresql can do most if not all what M$ SQL server can do.I have used them all except for oracle and I can tell you postgres is very nice and the 7.5 version will have many new features like tablespaces and two phase commit.Postgres also has table namespaces(schemas) which allow you to logicly organize your tables without using messy prefixes.Not to mention you can write stored procs in 4 or 5 different languages including Java and they are working on a C# procedural language that will use mono.Sure Postgres has some differences and weirdness if you are used to MS SQL server but I hardly think they are worth the price you pay for MS SQL server. 2004-07-26 10:54 pm but now with the new sql server express, you can enjoy a query-governor-less implementation of microsoft sql server for free. 2004-07-26 10:58 pm Actually Postgresql can do most if not all what M$ SQL server can do.I replaced a large SQL Server installation with PostgreSQL and found that your statement is indeed true. As an added bonus, by switching to PostgreSQL I was able to use a lot less hardware to accomplish the same task; thus freeing up some nice hardware for other purposes.Considering past MS experiences, my guess is that SQL Server 2005 will be even more resource hungry that its predecessors; but I will reserve any final judgement until it comes out and I have to use it. 2004-07-27 2:45 am I have not heard of sql express, but I would imagine it is limited in some way.Do you have a link for more info?I bet it’s limited to 10 connections or something. 2004-07-27 3:25 am It has the following limits:1 cpu per instance (you can have multiple instances on same machine)1 GB ram per instance4gb max database size per instanceUnlike msde, it DOES NOT have a query governor (i.e. 8 simul operation limit).It also has some other advanced features missing (such as reporting services, DTS, analysis services and notification).Linkage: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/faq/#sqlexpress 2004-07-27 4:34 am Has the new beta of SQL Server 2005 dealt with the huge problem of TransactSQL error handleing?What I mean is in Oracle PL/SQL you can do this.code logic hereexeceptionwhen otherserror handling.In TransactSQL you have to do thiscode logic herecheck for errorcode logic herecheck for erroretc…This is not acceptable where I work. You need industrial strength error handleing for our batch processes. From last I worked with TransactSQL that is how it worked and I would only use SQL Server on a very simple database, and only if the company gave me no choice. Sure it can hold terabytes of data. So can many other things includeing flat file systems and most open source databases. Size is not the factor in todays world it’s features. Size is a given. So my point being its the entire databases feature set not just this or that, that decideds what I would use in a hardcore database enviroment. 2004-07-27 4:53 am http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dns…Looks like they are adding some nice stuff if you are a SQL Server user/Developer 2004-07-27 5:03 am http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dns…Looks like they are adding some nice stuff if you are a SQL Server user/Developer 2004-07-27 7:16 am Does it have a multi-version engine yet, to keep the oldversion of the row between the update and the commit, insteadof blocking readers?Until they fix this, we’ll get much better concurrency with PostgreSQL than with MS SQL, not to mention save a nice bit of cash. 2004-07-27 7:14 pm Why does every database news item (eb it about Oracle, Firebird, MySQL) ended up with someone mentioning Postgres? Is it really that good? 🙂Anyway, as I see it, the next SQL server is much anticipated because it will integrate .NET into the database server. I can see why developers would drool over this.Fortunately, we already have PostgreSQL and we will soon be able to write PL/triggers/etc in Java/C# (Mono). Yay! 2004-07-27 7:16 pm Last time I heard, they will have MVCC.