The Differences Between SQL Server 2000 and 2005
-
Reporting services was like a patch on sql server 2000 and it is integrated in 2005 and improved
Ruvy
-
Good Article. Helps us framing our replies.
Srinivas
-
Nice article., Would really appreciate if you can incorporate and put in the functionality of SSIS and Replication within which can enhance the application to a much higher stand.
-
Nice article., Would really appreciate if you can incorporate and put in the functionality of SSIS and Replication within which can enhance the application to a much higher stand.
-
Steve,
I'm curious about your take on this subject. Under the why upgrade section the basic point your expounding into our heads is that of support timelines. As such it looks to me like every 3 years I have to consider upgrading and after 6 I'm pretty much goated along that path. I was curious how does that fact factor into the total cost of ownership versus using other products. Also steve do you agree with this policy, and what would you like to see done diffrently?
Also I don't know the truth on the subject and was curious does Oracle still support say 7.3 and earlier versions of it's database products? I'm not a Oracle man so don't know but want to do a little point and contrast here. What about DB2 or other enterprise contenders in this space, is this policy unique to Microsoft?
Next I'm guessing that even if one was smart and "such" and didn't need support that one has to upgrade there version anyway for the fact that as time goes by and windows OS's drop off the support list no new security patches are availabe and new virsus and other security exploits become issues on those platforms. So if one upgrades the OS enough times underneath SQL server one is going to find that the OS no longer supports the version of SQL server your on and/or exhibits a new set of bug's that you can't get around and it's again off to the upgrade races all over again. My guess is there arn't many of us out there with SQL server 6.5 on a 64 bit version of Windows server 2003 ,but I could be wrong are there? If so reply and tell me/us your experiences.
Next why does this matter? Well outside of DBA job security upgrading ever few years is a pain in the derrière for you and the company. Validation is a pain (not every product in our quivers is a MS snap togther product) that is why I'm guessing adopting 2005 has been from what I have read not fast early on in it's release. Now I'm sure there are people out there just ready to fire back numbers to the contrary, and yes I myself seen facts stated at PASS last year that supported the fact of increased adoptance of SQL 2005. But if this cycle continues when will we all wan't to get off the merry go round (or can we?). I guess on could infer that the 5 years it took between 7.0 and 2000 was actually a blessing in that reguard, are the good old days gone, or are we going to start using sites like this on as a way to support the unsupported to keep the clock ticking just a little longer?
-
Friends,
Now a days, I am having one impression in my mind about sql server 2005 that, moving our current database of hundreds of tables from sql server 2000, will improve the server performance, also in terms of quering time. The database has most of the table having uniqueidentifier datatype for primay keys.
I don't know how can it be true. But i guess it is. But how?
-
What is the user level difference in SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005..?
-
Can you explain what you mean by user difference? Or what you're looking for?
-
On the questions from MudLuck.
It's kind of an unofficial policy from Microsoft that they'll support at least 2 versions of a product. However with their product cycles, and being $$ driven, they've really become a support only two versions company.
I believe that Oracle supports more, but I'm not an Oracle guy, so don't hold me to that. No idea on DB2, though I've emailed them.
I think 5 years is a good timeframe, and it's one that would be worth having them charge for some support. I'm not sure about 20% a year, but maybe 5-10% a year of the purchase price for support over that time. While there are definitely features that I would have liked to see included, 5 years is time to learn, get a stable system, and be ready for an upgrade.
Microsoft didn't seem to see it that way and I can't help but think that their view is mostly financially driven. I'm sure there are some features lacking, such as the CLR integration of packages/assemblies/functions, which Oracle added for Java, that they want to get out sooner, but there are other ways to do that. I'm not sure a new version every 3 years is the way to do it.
But if you are planning on upgrading every other time, then maybe it makes sense. You can go 5-6 years, and just skip versions.
Actually this probably deserves more thought and a longer answer. I'll either editorialize on it or maybe write another upgrade article 🙂
-
Steve,
I eagerly await your new article on this subject. If there is anything I can add it would be this. Not all database requirements are a one size fits all affair. In other words there are as many database requirements out there as there are databases.
Case in point, I work for a decently sized reference laboratory, and for various regulatory and research reasons we have decided to keep the results of ever test we have run as well as its results since the inception of our in house electronic system of 1994 (yes I know 7.0 came out in 1995 we back loaded data). As time has gone on we have built our volume from a meager 100 samples a day up to around 40k - 50k samples a day as I write this. Factor that with a 3 to 1 ratio in tests ordered to results given and you can see a data explosion on your hands. The database is a bit over 1 TB in size as I write this. We really don't actively use this database in our daily business; we have other production databases with a 90 day and 1 day scale to use.
Yes a few crystal reports here and there for research and maybe a historical patient lookup once or twice a month for whatever reason, but fact is people don't care if it's slower than the latest version, and we are just keeping it around in case we want to look. So we really don’t care about performance only availability. Things like partitioning, data warehousing, or even the index create features of 2005 don't matter. The current 2000 environment and a 6 hour red gate full backup is plenty fine thank you very much. So I'm hoping I have another 10 years left on this system. Maybe Microsoft or a new virus has me proven wrong! Tell you what if it's still around in ten years I'll send you an e-mail stating the fact.
Enjoy,
MudLuck = life
-
a10a25 (10/1/2007)
What is the user level difference in SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005..?A user will probably not notice a difference since they will normally access the server through a front-end application. The version running on the server should be largely transparent. If the upgrade in SQL Server resulted in a server upgrade, which frequently happens, then they may notice a performance increase, which might be the SQL version or might be the hardware boost.
If the user is doing things through Enterprise Manager or Query Analyzer, then they're going to have to get used to a new interface and will have to learn the new features in Transact-SQL if they want to get more use out of the database.
It cannot be quantified that the upgrade will result in "X%" increased performance or reduced run time or improved server up time, there are too many variables that would affect such a calculation.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font] -
Its good article for me
Where can i find developement side difference?
-
Hi Steve,
Nice article. I have my doubts over the point where systems actually had permanant tables owned by actual users..
As far as I know, People have get rid of User- Schema connection by not allowing permanant, business related tables in user's own schema (users are often allowed to create only temporary tables in their schema) and most of the systems have used only dbo schema. Some have used other than dbo, but its again a hard coded user (which never mapped to a real user)
Around 5 - 8 years ago, I worked with a few systems where the database had many schemas - each one representing a particulr module. (Iventory, sales etc. Much of the same way SQL server 2005 works...
Did people actually used tables in their own schema to handle business?
Cheers,
Prithiviraj Kulasinghamhttp://preethiviraj.blogspot.com/
-
hello sir,
i have to know that is ythe diffrence between the sql sever 2000 and sql server 2005
-
Hi Steve,
I wonder if you can advice on the following:
An organisation wants a report of the differences between SQL 2000 and SQL 2005. They don't want to know all the differences, but only the differences that apply for their specific infrastructure. They have more than 35 SQL servers an every server its configured on a different way. This company will not migrate all servers at once, that means that the configuration of the server can change after the report its delivered. My common sense tells me that to check every server will be a waste of time, so I want just to name the things that for sure will change for all servers. I'm planing to add as an attachment all the differences between SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 that the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Upgrade Technical Reference Guide names. I will also advice to use the "Upgrade Advisor". What do you think?
I will be really thankful for any feedback you can give me.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ignacio
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 55 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply