Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««56789»»»

Is It Worth Upgrading to SQL Server 2008 Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 9:37 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:08 PM
Points: 1,414, Visits: 4,540
David.Poole (12/18/2009)
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.


that's our biggest problem

we 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 luck


https://plus.google.com/100125998302068852885/posts?hl=en
http://twitter.com/alent1234
x-box live gamertag: i am null
[url=http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile[/url]
Post #836429
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 9:41 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:08 PM
Points: 1,414, Visits: 4,540
jts_2003 (12/18/2009)
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?


MS is still releasing CU's for SQl 2005 based on the code review of SQL 2008


https://plus.google.com/100125998302068852885/posts?hl=en
http://twitter.com/alent1234
x-box live gamertag: i am null
[url=http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile[/url]
Post #836433
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 10:49 AM


SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:29 PM
Points: 127, Visits: 860
sentiant (10/20/2008)
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.


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.


"When in danger or in doubt. Run in circles, scream and shout!" TANSTAAFL
"Robert A. Heinlein"
Post #836498
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 12:01 PM


SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20 PM
Points: 115, Visits: 130
The 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!
Post #836556
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 1:07 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:42 PM
Points: 16, Visits: 137
We are currently upgrading from SQL Server 2005 to 2008. One major factor in our decision to upgrade was Filtered Indexes.
Post #836611
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 1:26 PM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:54 PM
Points: 881, Visits: 1,002
chris.watson (12/18/2009)
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.


Here is a fairly in-depth article on the SQL Server 2008 BI improvements: SQL Server 2008 Business Intelligence Enhancements



Post #836624
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 1:45 PM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, November 26, 2012 7:59 PM
Points: 169, Visits: 62
I 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.



Post #836642
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 1:57 PM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 3:54 PM
Points: 67, Visits: 230
Too 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.
Post #836648
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 3:33 PM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 8, 2014 7:31 AM
Points: 50, Visits: 542
Actually, backup compression was announced to be available in Standard Edition of SQL Server 2008 R2, when it is released. Apparently scheduled for sometime in 2010. (Just in case that matters to you.)
Post #836685
Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 4:03 PM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 3:54 PM
Points: 67, Visits: 230
That's good, if compression makes it into the standard edition. It will speed up backups for small businesses too.
Post #836699
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««56789»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse