I'm investigating the possibility of upgrading our SQL Server from SQL Server 2000 to either 2005 or 2008. There's a lot of concern over whether or not 2008 is really ready for us to use because the database is so critical to our product. What are the compelling reasons to use 2008 over 2005? Have you had good or bad experiences with 2008? I'm particurally interested in query performance, new features for our queries, and stability.
+4
A:
AS for new features, I have to point out the new spatial datatypes, geometry and geography, which basically allow you to add actual longitude / latitude points and even cooler, bind those points to a geometry.
i.e. imagine a map with zipcodes, the geography representing the center of the zipcode, and the geometry the are the zipcode covers. Then you could use the built in new function of sql server to determine if a customer for instance is in that are.
Edit P.S. here's a link to a series of articles describing benefits / new features:
Colin
2009-08-05 13:22:45
That's neat. I suppose you could have done this in your .Net code previously though. Is it any better to do at this level? It seems like it could be worse.
Jon
2009-08-05 13:25:09
This way you get datamining as well, queries for large areas could be expensive, or might be needed run overnight over a Cube. this way all that datamining is done on the SQL server., which then can be used in your app.
Colin
2009-08-05 13:28:09
That's a fair point I suppose.
Jon
2009-08-05 13:35:21
It only takes one customer that will not upgrade to stop use the new features for the benifit of other customers. It can take months get to find out if customers are willing to upgrade the database server for the new version of your software.
Ian Ringrose
2009-08-05 18:04:58
@Ian Ringrose, good point. We still have to support SQL 2000/MSDE. Every time we create a stored proc, we have to make sure it's SQL 2000-compliant. Gradually, we're getting users up to SQL 2008, but it's painstaking.
C-Pound Guru
2009-08-05 19:57:47
+4
A:
One good reason--Backup Compression in SQL 2008. SQL 2008 has 3 options for backups:
In SQL 2008 there are 3 options while backing up databases, these are:
- No Compression (same as SQL 2005)
- Server Setting (if server backup compression setting is on/off - use this setting)
- Compression (Compress backup file during backup)
SQL 2008 backup with compression is generally faster than SQL 2005 backup without compression (less file i/o with a compressed file)
Edit: We've been using SQL 2008 for a while now and have had no problems. In fact, working with the new features in SQL Management Studio (such as intellisense) have made some tasks easier.
C-Pound Guru
2009-08-05 13:26:53
That is compelling. SQL backup is part of our release process and it takes forever now.
Jon
2009-08-05 13:31:58
I'd second that with page compression http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280449.aspx to benefit the live data as well as backup. Less IO, smaller MDFs to maintain and allocate, just plain goodness.
Remus Rusanu
2009-08-05 19:15:11
+4
A:
I'd upgrade to 2008 because:
- While you don't think about it now, 2005 will go "end of life" sooner and another upgrade could be forced before you are ready.
- Everything 2005 can do, 2008 can do. But the opposite is not true. The worst thing to happen would be to upgrade to 2005 only to discover you need something with 2008 and have to upgrade again.
- There are many little things improved or added in 2008.
I'd also ask why are you worried about going to 2008? If you are upgrading today, why go to a product that is 4 years old instead of going to the latest?
Jeff Siver
2009-08-05 13:29:32
I'd point to the end of life argument I made above as one big thing (do we want to do this again when SQL Server 2011 comes out). Also, you can point out that SP1 is out for SQL Server 2008 so it is at a stable point.And, I forget how managers can be at many organizations. I am a director who gets to make these type of calls now and I see this as a non-decision (2008 hands down)..
Jeff Siver
2009-08-05 13:58:05
+2
A:
I've poked at 2008 a bit, but haven't used it "for real" yet. I can only offer some highlights.
It is "ready for use". SQL Server has been a totally viable product at least since 7.0. If it was buggy, crappy, or generally worthless, its competitors (everyone who isn't Microsoft) would have made it pretty clear to everyone by now.
It's a new version, it will be supported by MS longer.
Many new and fancy bells and whistles. However, they are bells and whistles, they don't really add that much to "core" database functionality.
There are some serious additions, in particular the various new date and time datatypes. (And if they every get something like Oracle's grid computing, then I'll be really impressed.)
By and large, I believe its "you buy the 2008 license, you get to use 2005 or 2008, your choice". As such, you're better off using the latest version.
Philip Kelley
2009-08-05 13:32:56
Oh that's very interesting about the licensing stuff. Also a good point about the competition. If 2008 was a mess then I'm sure the whole internet would know about it by now.
Jon
2009-08-05 13:34:15
C-Pound Guru mentions a big one I forgot: backup compression. I've used SQL LiteSpeed in the past and love it. Backup compression is beyond totally useful, it's all but essential with gigabyte-size databases.
Philip Kelley
2009-08-05 13:43:21
+2
A:
We have been using it for about 3 months now, and it seems pretty stable. We also upgraded from 2000 and it was pretty painless. One thing I noticed was the new MERGE statement, which is a nice way to do upserts.
Bryant Bowman
2009-08-05 13:37:35