SQL 2005 - worth it?
-
Is it worth it upgrading from SQL2000 to SQL2005? What is the big "WOW" in the new SQL? Having six servers, and a large amount of CALS, it's going cost a small fortune.
you can't forget something you never knew...
As everyone else has said: look at your needs and see if it will help. We moved from 32bit SQL 2000 to 64 bit SQL 2005 and had a massive performance improvement. I also redid some of our queries to take advantage of new features such as
ROW_NUMBERwhich, while not giving a massive boost, cleaned up code and did make a difference. The ability to use C# in your SQL SPROCs is interesting but I'm not sure I can convince Dmitry, our SQL guy to implement them. I think "over my dead body" or some such is probably the answer I'll get ;) Oh, and the management studio is much nicer but much slower. Sometimes I wonder if I prefer the faster ADHD enabled 2000 version or the more intuitive hang-on-a-second-while-I-think-about-this 2005 version.cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Is it worth it upgrading from SQL2000 to SQL2005? What is the big "WOW" in the new SQL? Having six servers, and a large amount of CALS, it's going cost a small fortune.
you can't forget something you never knew...
It's been 5+ years since I last used SQL 2000, but when I recently installed SQL 2005 to see what it was like, I found no options for creating databases. I must've installed the wrong version.
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
-
Is it worth it upgrading from SQL2000 to SQL2005? What is the big "WOW" in the new SQL? Having six servers, and a large amount of CALS, it's going cost a small fortune.
you can't forget something you never knew...
The xml data type might be neat or the clr in the database. But, one big improvement hinges around the full text searching. We had full text set up on a large database with sql 2000 and rebuilding the full text index was taking sometimes 10 hours to build from scratch. We switched to 2005 and it improved dramatically (I think we could build it in less than 30 minutes). I believe that if you use full text indexing in your apps, it might really be worth looking at.
-
Is it worth it upgrading from SQL2000 to SQL2005? What is the big "WOW" in the new SQL? Having six servers, and a large amount of CALS, it's going cost a small fortune.
you can't forget something you never knew...
As others have said, a bunch of little wows. I really don't count SQL/CLR as I've yet to see a good use of it. If you were thinking of upgrading to Vista - this[^] would probably count as a "must upgrade" reason.
Earlier versions of SQL Server, including SQL Server 2000 (all editions including Desktop Engine edition, a.k.a MSDE), SQL Server 7.0, and SQL Server 6.5, will not be supported on Windows Server "Longhorn" or Windows Vista.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Was that a sarcastic remark because I stated the obvious ;)
We made the buttons on the screen look so good you'll want to lick them. Steve Jobs
No, I was serious this time. It's pretty uncommon for MS to have a useful feature comparison and prices on one page. They should do it more often.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Is it worth it upgrading from SQL2000 to SQL2005? What is the big "WOW" in the new SQL? Having six servers, and a large amount of CALS, it's going cost a small fortune.
you can't forget something you never knew...
-
As everyone else has said: look at your needs and see if it will help. We moved from 32bit SQL 2000 to 64 bit SQL 2005 and had a massive performance improvement. I also redid some of our queries to take advantage of new features such as
ROW_NUMBERwhich, while not giving a massive boost, cleaned up code and did make a difference. The ability to use C# in your SQL SPROCs is interesting but I'm not sure I can convince Dmitry, our SQL guy to implement them. I think "over my dead body" or some such is probably the answer I'll get ;) Oh, and the management studio is much nicer but much slower. Sometimes I wonder if I prefer the faster ADHD enabled 2000 version or the more intuitive hang-on-a-second-while-I-think-about-this 2005 version.cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
We moved from 32bit SQL 2000 to 64 bit SQL 2005 and had a massive performance improvement.
So, that is why the site runs so fast anymore? You sure it is not becuase you removed all the looping code ? :)
Chris Maunder wrote:
The ability to use C# in your SQL SPROCs is interesting but I'm not sure I can convince Dmitry
Even for simply patching into the RegEx, it can be worth it, lots of power there! CLR intergration may not be the end all feature, but I am sure we will see a lot more planning in the future to take advantage of the ability. Poke - Prod: Any idea when maybe an article detailing the structure CP's hardware/software and experience building it, would come into being? Sure would be nice to hear the story behind the battle over the CP solution during the last few years and what level of hardware/software is in play now.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Anti-Spam idea - Help!
-
As others have said, a bunch of little wows. I really don't count SQL/CLR as I've yet to see a good use of it. If you were thinking of upgrading to Vista - this[^] would probably count as a "must upgrade" reason.
Earlier versions of SQL Server, including SQL Server 2000 (all editions including Desktop Engine edition, a.k.a MSDE), SQL Server 7.0, and SQL Server 6.5, will not be supported on Windows Server "Longhorn" or Windows Vista.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Nice piece of foot-shooting there. If we can't run SQL Server 2000, we won't be upgrading. We need to support the software that's out there. Since the software is still within its support lifecycle it should be supported on the new operating systems. Right now I'm finding that eMbedded Visual C++ doesn't work on Windows Vista Beta 2 - trying to get eVC 4.0 to even install is a huge challenge - so that's another reason why I won't be upgrading.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
No, I was serious this time. It's pretty uncommon for MS to have a useful feature comparison and prices on one page. They should do it more often.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighist -
I was probably just being a bit paranoid. :cool:
We made the buttons on the screen look so good you'll want to lick them. Steve Jobs