SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in

SQL Server vs. JET

By Steve Jones,

Exchange 2010Actually the title should be SQL Server vs. ESE, which is the proper name for the database engine that Exchange uses. It's the Extensible Storage Engine (ESE), which is more commonly known as the JET engine and is going to be used in the upcoming Exchange 2010 product. This technology has been used in Exchange for years, though it has been enhanced for each new version, including Exchange 2010.

However last week the Exchange team noted in a blog that not only had they considered using SQL Server instead of ESE, they had actually gotten it working. Even though this was the case, the blog mentions says that apparently SQL Server wouldn't necessarily meet their needs for the enhancements they wanted.

"It was ultimately determined that the best way to ensure we could drive compelling innovation into Exchange for 2010 and beyond was to remain committed to ESE."

There weren't specific reasons given for the deficiencies in SQL Server, but instead they mention that ESE would give them some significant HA, performance, and storage cost reductions after it was enhanced. I also saw a note that many businesses couldn't afford a SQL and an Exchange license, but I would think that the SQL Server engine could be embedded in the Exchange product without the need for a separate license.

That seems strange to me, since I'd think that SQL Server would provide a great platform in which to store mail messages. SQL Server 2008 includes so many enhancements to move beyond relational storage, like the Filestream data type, that I'd expect it would easily handle Exchange needs. In addition, the backup and recovery capabilities of SQL Server are well known, and it would reduce (somewhat) the skills needed by administrators.

It makes me wonder if there weren't disagreements between these two teams, or perhaps a NIH (not invented here) syndrome being perpetrated by the Exchange group. Maybe the SQL Server team won't provide the enhancements that the Exchange team needs, or maybe not in a timely manner. However I'd think that they could include them in a future version, or they'd have built them into SQL Server 2008 at the request of the Exchange group.

It would seem to me that there would be some efficiencies gained and costs reduced by not having a separate database engine for different products. In these times when cost cutting is hitting all companies, including Microsoft, this move surprises me.

But maybe it's a strategic move. Perhaps the work on a separate storage engine fosters some competition, or even allows new ideas for database structures to be developed independent of SQL Server, and without the baggage that comes with long term development on a product. Perhaps we'll even get some ideas from ESE fed back into SQL Server at some point.

Steve Jones

Total article views: 248 | Views in the last 30 days: 1
Related Articles

SQL Server <--> Microsoft Exchange Interface

exchange sql server 2008 r2


Send SQL Server Data to Exchange

An updated version of xp_sql2exchange is now available, enabling you to publish SQL Server data easi...


Denali – Day 29: Resource Governor Enhancements (Database Engine)

Denali – Day 29: Resource Governor Enhancements (Database Engine) Introduction to Resource Governor:...


Reverse Engineering a Server Side Trace

How to reverse engineer or script a trace for disaster recovery, or simply scripting for enhance and...


Exchange from SQL Server

SQL Server allows data access from many sources, probably any that you could want. Some, however, ar...

database weekly    
sql server