InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 23 May 2013 19:40:24 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxTom,I think a lot of companies are looking at things this way. Some may even skip SQL 2008 and R2 from 2005 to jump to 2011 or 2012 since it has not been that long since SS2K8 was released.Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:00:01 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxGood article, and much interesting discussion.The outfit I ran until the middle of last year will be going to SQLS 2008, despite it not being much different from 2005 - but won't be going to 2005. Having not yet upgraded from SQLS 2000 Std edition, the upgrade is now going to be direct from SQLS 2000 to SQLS 2008, skipping 2005. Then the app environment will be upgraded to the latest .net version and use WPF and XAML.Being a small outfit with customers to whom IT is generally regarded as a cost to be minimised meant we didn't have the option of upgrading a customer's SQL servers during the contract or of using a more expensive MS licensing model that would allow the customer's systems to be upgraded for free. The one after SQLS 2008 will probably be skipped too, for the same reasons - unless there's a real zoom in the target market that allows a lot of growth.Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:22:26 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxI imagine most companies will move to SQL Server 2008 because of the off-box key management features the Enterprise version provides. Anyone that has to pass a PCI-DSS audit will definitely appreciate that feature, along with the other encryption artifacts.Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:22:04 GMTWilliam-317219http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxThere is an error in the database sizes from my previous post, should be Gig not Meg.(531 Meg to 106 Meg and 239 Meg to 44 Meg) should be (531 Gig to 106 Gig and 239 Gig to 44 Gig).It would be difficult to justify Enterprise Edition if the databases were that small.Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:39:04 GMTJStineyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxJohn S. meant GB (not meg).Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:31:03 GMTtlamplhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxSQL 2008 Compression and Table Partitioning are not to be underestimated. They have allowed us to easily justify going to Enterprise Edition instead of Standard Edition when we upgrade from SQL 2000.Our two largest databases BUDGET_HOURLY and BUDGET have been reduced in space used for the data files (mdf files) from 531 Meg to 106 Meg and 239 Meg to 44 Meg. In the BUDGET_HOURLY database all tables were compressed and in BUDGET database we compressed only tables with more than 10 million rows. The table partitioning greatly improved nightly index rebuild times on the largest tables, and the applications is running significantly faster.SQL Server 2008 is running as a virtual machine under Hiper-V, but on a faster box than the SQL 2000 so comparing run times gets complicated. Suffice to say, we are very happy with the results of moving to SQL 2008 Enterprise on a virtual machine. We really did not think we could justify Enterprise Edition until we did the testing, but we had the machine and we had the time, and the results far exceeded our expectations.Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:21:18 GMTJStineyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxThx for working thru features vs cost. My client's application has been SQLS/2k for 5 years; no upgrade in the original license AFAIK, so several thou $ to consider SQLS/05, so I had not even looked at it. Now, it seems that if it ain't broke w/SQLS/2k, then "fixing" it w/any subsequent version is not worth the $:cool: ... or any more time reading thru 9 pages of comments:hehe:.Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:47:42 GMTwareforehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxUpgrade to 2008 because its code base may be different than 2005 and you will get efficient processing and support from Microsoft. Microsoft may have improved code otherwise they will not ask you to upgrade. Look the way we develope and maintain our applications.Also if you want to get Enterprise features of 2008 later then you will be ready and there will be no downtime and re-testing.Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:01:26 GMTssaroiahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx[quote][b]SQLMadness (12/18/2009)[/b][hr]We are currently upgrading from SQL Server 2005 to 2008. One major factor in our decision to upgrade was Filtered Indexes.[/quote]Yup, this is the feature I earely want to use and will help a lot in typical applications.Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:28:58 GMTpeter-757102http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxfrom planning our company migration from 2k5->2k8, it looks like it will at least be easier than our 2k->2k5 migration :-)Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:20:15 GMTdaggleshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxJim,Are you sure your machine has the required specs for SQL Server 2005? I run the developer edition, which is obviously the Enterprise Edition w/ developer licensing, and I absolute love the new management studio. For starters, the new Visual Studio like design makes developing and performing Admin across all SQL modules obviously so much easier. I can have a connection open to the Database Engine, SSAS, SSRS and SSIS at the same time with no latency. My machine is an early 2008 HP laptop with a 2.5Ghz core 2 duo and 4 GB of 800Mhz RAM, so maybe I'm just more well equipped but even when running Vista I was zipping along at a more than fast enough clip. I am runing Windows 7 Professional and see some performance gain. It's really noticable at times, like when firing up often used apps. As for teh number of clicks, I'm not sure I follow? I fire up SSMS and click once to connect (as you have to with EM) to the Database Engine, one click to open security and another for logins? Really not a lot of difference. The databases are inside of "databases" folder but that just makes sense and keeps the console organized. The solution explorer, and all other explorer windows are a God send. I don't know anyone, besides you ;) that doesn't think SQL 2005 management studio is light years ahead of the 2000 UI. Having query analyzer there, with tons of MDX and troubleshooting tools at your fingertips, as well as Admin tools is awesome. In the long run, the old EM required me anyway, many more clicks and really click count is not a good measure. When you click say 5 times, right in the same area of the screen w/o bringing up new windows and having to reoriant and now switch between windows (if you use SQL for more than one thing you end up with several windows on your task back and lot's for switching back and forth. I have said so long to that old school UI and love the console. with respect, JerrySun, 20 Dec 2009 12:29:07 GMTEseehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxI'm not sure if this requires its own thread but--the only improvement I wanted to see is a simpler, more efficient Management Console which was foisted upon us in sql 2005. SMS is so go*$#amn ridiculously slow and tedious. I mean, I counted at least 12 clicks and an unacceptable latency after each click just to add table permissions for a user!! Come on. In the old EM, in *TWO* clicks you were looking at a list of users and checkboxes to set permissions! This goes for so many once-simple management tasks. I don't know why they did this or if I'll have much agreement on this--but the SMS is so painful to use it just defies logic.My two cents.-JimSun, 20 Dec 2009 12:12:07 GMTJames Stephenshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx[quote][b]robert.goudie-497430 (12/18/2009)[/b][hr]BTW we still use DTS - despite having several books at work on SSIS that our key people have read at one point or another.Thus far we have found DTS easier and more intuitive: SSIS takes a heap longer to achieve what comes intuitively in DTS, and this despite having no DTS documentation at all.[/quote]I use SSIS rather infrequently and when I come back to it I inevitably reinvent the whole Anglo-Saxon dictionary of biological insults and blasphemy. Once I get back into the swing of it I start to like it but should I have to get into the swing of it? Shouldn't it be more intuitive.The particular gripe is the bit about changing package properties requiring them to be entered into a list in one of the components. There is a scripting equivalent that is supposed to negate this need but I've never got it to work.I think SSIS will eventually evolve into something whose power is matched by an intuitive way of doing things but I personally I feel it has a way to go yet.SQL2008 has one or two features that are in the "close but no cigar" camp. CDC looks good, until you have to factor in agile development changing the schema every 5 minutes.Policy based management looks good but I want to audit naming conventions on fields.Switch partitioning really rocks though!Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:49:48 GMTDavid.Poolehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxI guess it depends if you are a SQL Admin or developer. The intellisense is indeed a huge step up for developers at any site. I also love the fact that SSRS, which we use heavily for web services based reporting, does not require IIS any longer. It was a pain to setup and use due to that fact. SSRS doesn't seem to make the author's radar, but it's a very powerful web services based reporting tool that blows away any 3rd party tool in it's cost range (free). It comes with the complete Visual Studio interface, if you don't already have Visual Studio, and adds a half dozen project types for reports, SSIS, SSAS and so on. You have the power of .NET behind SSRS which means your options and data delivery/manipulation with SQL Server/Anaysis services/Integration services is almost limitless. Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:32:27 GMTEseehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxSomething worth thinking on with SQL 2008 is the Filestream functionality. I am told reliably (an MS source) that this was developed specifically with SharePoint in mind. The idea being quite lean databases with all the BLOB objects from the document libraries and other content being seperate to the database itself. SO all the Pro's of having a CMS and all the Pro's of having a Fileserver with none of the cons. Slightly off the DBA track I know but as it's a huge product at the moment its worth considering if you are spec'ing or designing backends for this kind of system.DSat, 19 Dec 2009 08:39:09 GMTchapterthirteenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxGood reason to upgrade to SQL 2008 is if your company uses Office products 2007. BI - Excel import export of data to 2007..unless there is some add on driver I don't know about like SSMA sql server migration assistant for access 2003 and 2007.Excel 2007 - more then 65,000 rows, and business analytic tools(really just wizards, but make it fast if you know what you want)The SSIS packages follow a stricter Development environment which I think can be good, but still has those wizards, there just in different places. Take the time to look for them.And more importantly If not upgrading all servers, continue to upgrade a test environment , don't wait to fall back until your forced to upgrade and see a complete departure of what you are used too.;-)Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:20:13 GMTkrishna1082http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx[quote][b]danschl (10/22/2008)[/b][hr]since there isnt going to be a sql2005 sp3sql2008 is actually that, so we arent upgrading to sql2008 from sql2005but it there is a new server purchase it will probably be sql2008[/quote]Ermm there is a SQL 2005 SP3 and has been for some time...[url=http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ae7387c3-348c-4faa-8ae5-949fdfbe59c4&displaylang=en]SP3 Link...[/url]Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:26:38 GMTchapterthirteenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxyou are so right dude!Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:42:21 GMTdollmaker28http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxWhen the resource governer hits the standard edition we will be encouraged to move along.DTS Minor Rant Warning:BTW we still use DTS - despite having several books at work on SSIS that our key people have read at one point or another.Thus far we have found DTS easier and more intuitive: SSIS takes a heap longer to achieve what comes intuitively in DTS, and this despite having no DTS documentation at all.Why? Personal view - possibly a bit of a caricature but saying this to underscore a trend line not denigrate valid outliers - SSIS is in effect attempting to turn .NET application developers into DBAs raher than an attempt to provide a productivity framework that leverages the way DBAs handle data.If I were to buy software from a sql focused company (e.g. RedGate) as a DBA I expect to be able to use their products directly - i.e. expect their software to enhance rapid-fire set based thinking out of the box - with no need to stop and translate anything into an alternate paradigm in order to "keep up" with the latest trends.Personal view is .NET is coat-tailing the fundamental success of T-SQL rather than leavarging it by a demonstrable factor of "X". What I want is a product that delivers an "X" factor without having to change the way that I think - which is already carefully tuned around the foundational driver of T-SQL.Are we squeezing DBA productivity through an unnecessary energy consuming vortex - in order to achieve a marketing target? Is there a productivity target? Solving pedantic application specific puzzles and side-isses does not add to my productivity as a DBA.We are in the process of moving to a competitor to SSIS because we see MS taking the wrong fork in the road - DBAs should not have to leave a development environment in order to work in a foreign environment built for application development and then like the proverbial Humpty Dumpty, have to glue everything back together again better than new.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:33:35 GMTrobert.goudie-497430http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxPlease check the link given regarding differences between SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008. The link doesnot exist.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:59:54 GMTrajn.knit07http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxThat's good, if compression makes it into the standard edition. It will speed up backups for small businesses too. :-)Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:03:47 GMTDavid Walker-278941http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxActually, backup compression was announced to be available in Standard Edition of SQL Server 2008 [b]R2[/b], when it is released. Apparently scheduled for sometime in 2010. (Just in case that matters to you.)Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:33:30 GMTRussell Fields-270604http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxToo bad that backup compression is not in the Standard edition. But, if you're using the Standard edition, hopefully your databases are small enough that disk space for backups is relatively inexpensive.We have some 230 GB SQL server databases, which are replicated to production, development, and QA environments. The development ones get changed sometimes, so these databases all get backed up.Backup compression saves disk space, AND, what most people don't realize, is that it also takes less TIME to perform a compressed backup than an uncompressed backup. So, the backup is smaller, and the backup job runs faster too.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:57:20 GMTDavid Walker-278941http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxI absolutely believe it is useful to upgrade from SQL 2005 Standard to 2008 Standard. The warehouse I manage has gone from 7.0, 2000, 2005 to 2008. Going to 2005 was a lot of effort for the developers (because of lots of DTS and Analysis Services), but it made the upgrade to 2008 painless. We noticed an obvious difference in performance across many reports when we went to 2005. The change when we upgraded to 2008 was even more obvious. Same hardware. Still x86. Most reports use cubes as the source.Building cubes in BDS is much nicer now, and Reporting Services 2008 is sweet. I love finally having a native Date type. Intellisense - have Red-Gate at work so don't need it there, but it's darn handy at home.My comments are mostly subjective, but I can say unequivocally that those of us in my organisation, and at our vendor, are very pleased that we went to 2008. It didn't feel like a small change at all. Whereas 2000 to 2005 felt like we were rebuilding the engine (hard, dirty work), 2005 to 2008 felt like getting a tune-up, new tires and a paint job all in one.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:45:23 GMTlanceahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx[quote][b]chris.watson (12/18/2009)[/b][hr]Does any one have any experience in running integration services and reporting services under 2005 and upgrading to 2008 - are there bigger benefits here - I wonder as these 'extensions' do appear to be 'bolt-ons' to the core 2005 products and we are led to believe there is better functionality in the 2008 versions. [/quote]Here is a fairly in-depth article on the SQL Server 2008 BI improvements: [url=http://windowsitpro.com/Windows/Articles/ArticleID/98467/pg/1/1.html]SQL Server 2008 Business Intelligence Enhancements[/url]Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:26:56 GMTTerryShttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxWe are currently upgrading from SQL Server 2005 to 2008. One major factor in our decision to upgrade was Filtered Indexes.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:07:55 GMTSQLMadnesshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxThe behind the scenes optimizations that are out with SQL Server 2008 as well as the enhansements to SSIS, SSAS, SSRS development and T-SQL enhancements make it a no brainer to me. The development time saved is totally worth the investment! Testing and validating is also much quicker. If I want to test a bug in a procedure and need to create a working copy for debuging, I bring over the input variables add one simple declare, the guts of the procedure minus try catch blocks and begin debugging. Now, I do not have intellisense, I do not have the ability to add most of a procedure with only one or 2 lines. Now I have to declare every input variable and set every input variable instead of only changing the defaults on just one or 2 for testing. I have a SQL 2005 environment and a local environment of 2008 for debugging, my PM wants to know how I can find problems so quickly when others can't even get their working copy by the time I am finished. I am sorry, but I just think that with lots of complex mathmatical t-sql in my industry, it is far to much of a no brainer. I also do not have to jump through hoops trying to build things in SSRS that are simply not available with SQL Server 2005. All of that being said, THIS IS A FORUM, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is just mine and intended in no way to be offensive, derogatory, or pointed at anyone.BE KEWL!Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:01:12 GMTezlik3sundaymorninghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx[quote][b]sentiant (10/20/2008)[/b][hr]It sounds like M$ is giving us another hard boiled egg. I'm very disappointed in 2005 to begin with, as 2000 had features that aren't even native to 2005. For instance, Importing data was so much easier in 2000. Now all my DTS' are pretty much worthless unless I want to combine a 2000 package with the 2005 and then I still have to perform most of the work manually.I was also disappointed in your article. You basically gave us a short summary of whats new and whats lacking but couldn't deliver the money shot when it came to saying 2008 is garbage so don't get it.I mean come on, you basically asked at the end of the article what we thought... Gee, When I read the title of the post in my email I thought you were gonna tell me what I clicked thru to find out.[/quote]I agree with the DTS problem.I can copy a database in 2000 with 3 or 4 clicks.To copy a database in 2008 is a real pain.I develop Access .adp applications for our company. I have created over 150 databases this year. Each one is similar but enough difference that one standard format can not be used.We just changed from Access 2000 to Access 2007.We currently use SQL Server 2000 as the back end.SQL 2000 objects can be modifed from Access 2000 or Access 2007 but SQL 2008 objects can not be modifed.I am afraid that Access 2010 is droppng the adp projects and enforcing ODBC.That will require object changes in SQL server to be performed in management studio.Oh well, in the meantime, we will stick with Office 2007 and SQL 2000 until such time we are forced to make a change.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:49:57 GMTDougGiffordhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx[quote][b]jts_2003 (12/18/2009)[/b][hr]I think with R2 just around the cormer, I'd wait for the first SP for that before upgrading. After all, will Microsoft release SPs and CUs for non R2 SQL Server 2008?[/quote]MS is still releasing CU's for SQl 2005 based on the code review of SQL 2008Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:41:01 GMTalen teplitskyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx[quote][b]David.Poole (12/18/2009)[/b][hr]The article was mainly about standard edition.The killer feature for enterprise users is the ability to switch partitions on replicated tables. This means that with careful design the purge of millions of records can be achieved in the blink of an eye without thrashing the disks and transaction log.[/quote]that's our biggest problemwe have a database that is refreshed every 45 days on average. new data comes in every few days and old data is archived. some days the archive process deletes 50 million rows and it kills replication. tried a lot of things to avoid rerunning the snapshot but no luckFri, 18 Dec 2009 09:37:34 GMTalen teplitskyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxInteresting (amd unsurprising) comments from all and we currently run SQL Server 2000 in the main but use 2005 for a single instance running SSSI and SSRS.Does any one have any experience in running integration services and reporting services under 2005 and upgrading to 2008 - are there bigger benefits here - I wonder as these 'extensions' do appear to be 'bolt-ons' to the core 2005 products and we are led to believe there is better functionality in the 2008 versions. we will evaluate anyway (that is our plan) but any comments from hose with the experience would be most welcome.Apologies of this is posted in the wrong discussion!Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:13:14 GMTchris.watsonhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxFYI for reference, another article that basically says the same thing, 2000 to 2008 or 2005 to 2008 Enterprise is worth it: [url=http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/100315/review-sql-server-2008.html]Review: SQL Server 2008[/url]Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:46:30 GMTTerryShttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxI'm not sure I'd agree that SS2K5 was built to sell VS. It was a good product, groundbreaking for SQL Server in terms of growing the product. Adding in Service Broker, Database Mail, lots of features that had SQL 2000 falling behind other platforms.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:15:10 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxfor the projects i worked on the filestream data was a huge win. I reaaaallly want to start messing around with spatial data, but so far i haven't had a reason to use itFri, 18 Dec 2009 06:14:27 GMTJason Deyalsinghhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx2008 includes spatial datatypes and queries - which alone are worth the switch if you have any mapping databases or store locations with data. You can use the new Bing map service API to utilize that spatial data.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:02:13 GMTmichael.rosshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspx[quote][b]allen-623417 (10/21/2008)[/b][hr]With our new server we installed SQL Server 2008 Standard.I haven't even scratched the surface of it's features (SSIS, etc) but I LOVE the InteliSense that SQL Server 2008 has. It is now painful to switch back to 2000 or even 2005 because I've gotten spoiled with 08's InteliSense.[/quote]You only need install the SQL 2008 Express management tools to get the intellisense deatures in SSMS. Theres no need to upgrade databases. It works on any database.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:37:34 GMTFatherjackhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxSQL 2005 was a vehicle for Microsoft to sell its Visual Studio product, nothing more. SQL 2000 was a very good version.Kind regards,PeterFri, 18 Dec 2009 05:33:43 GMTPeter Fairchildhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxYou can download addons that provide intelisense for 2000 and 2005.Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:37:39 GMTc00ler01http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxHi,shared documentation :http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/d/f/2df66c0c-fff2-4f2e-b739-bf4581cee533/SQLServer%202008CompareEnterpriseStandard.pdfis not reachableFri, 18 Dec 2009 03:30:11 GMTESL_HSBChttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic588923-1405-1.aspxI think with R2 just around the cormer, I'd wait for the first SP for that before upgrading. After all, will Microsoft release SPs and CUs for non R2 SQL Server 2008?Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:14:13 GMTjts_2003