I have encountered a situation where an SQL Server 2012 seems to tolerate SQL syntax e.g. for adding DATETIMEs to DATEs (see here) depending on which database is in use.
Could this be the case, and if so what determines the amount of backward compatibility that is tolerated by the same server in such cases. For instance, does it depend on who (which server) originally created the database?
SQL Server functionality is controlled not only by the version of the software but also by the compatibility level system parameter. Using the right compatibility level, the new software can be made to behave like older software. (Microsoft has not yet figured out how to make older software work like newer software; perhaps they are working on that. ;)
So, when things aren't working, but they should be, that is one of the first things to suspect. More information on the settings and changing them is in the documentation.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am rewriting an application for my company which requires a database. We are currently using SQL Server 8 and I will be updating the database. My question is which database to use. I have been looking at both SQL Server 2008 r2 and PostgreSQL 9.
The database will be hosted on a Windows Server 2008 box and will be used for both the stand-alone app and an associated website written in .NET.
Some of my points of concern are:
Cost (obviously PostgreSQL wins out here).
Is it ready for primetime? I have read somethings about it being as good as SQL but would like some input from those using it.
Ease of use. I am very comfortable with SQL Server. I have been experimenting with PostgreSQL and while it is different than SQL Server I am getting the hang of it.
Speed. Is PostgreSQL as fast as SQL Server?
Can I use ADO.NET (.NET 4.0) with PostgreSQL and get the same functionality as Using SQL Server (will be using Linq or Entity Framework)?
I will NOT be converting our old database in SQL Server 8 to the new database so I am not concerned with any conversion.
I would be interested in peoples opinion of the two and if PostgreSQL is an acceptable solution for a business application given the above.
TIA
Brian
Necromancing here.
As pointed out by SteveG, SQL-Server Express is probably what you want.
But I've used SQL-Server, SQL-Server Express and PostgreSQL extensively, and you should be aware that SQL-Server Express has some more nasty limitations other than just the DB size:
Installation requires administrator privileges (and system restart)
ReportingService Express can only connect to a local database,
ReportingService Express cannot use other data-sources than the local sql server (no ODBC)
Some ReportingServices features are missing (e.g. graphs and CSV/XML export formats)
Constrained to the usage of 1GB RAM (Same in 2008/2012)
Constrained to a single CPU (newspeak: Limited to the lesser of 1 Socket or 4 cores)
no Table and index partitioning
no indexed views
no database mirroring
no database tuning advisor
no notification services
cannot send email (you might be able to do it using CLR-Stored procedures if you absolutely need to)
cannot use/call Web-Services (newspeak: no HTTP Endpoints)
no service broker
no fulltext and no semantic search (requires Express Advanced Services)
Profiler tool is not included with SQL Server Express editions. (there is SQL Express profiler on github)
Job Scheduling service is not available with SQL Server Express.
Data import and export feature is not available with SQL Server Express (can/must be downloaded)
does not come with SSIS
and as said
- 4GB database size (raised to 10GB in SQL 2008 R2 and SQL 2012)
Note that the limit of 10GB is neither 10GB nor 10 GiB (10 * 10243), it's actually 10'240 MB (10 * 1'024 MB), which is actually only 95% of the 10 GB that I'd have interpreted as 10GiB (10'240'000'000*100/10'737'418'240)
Add to this the limitation that Microsoft-SQL-Server will only ever run on Windows (to date, Linux-port of SQL-server is now coming, but only as CTP so far, and without BI).
So to the other points often overlooked:
In Windows 7, you can only have up to 20 concurrent connections but no more.
If you need more, you'll have to put your SQL Server installation onto a Windows Server OS.
That means if you use SQL-Server Express in a use case with more than 20 concurrent users, you'll still need a windows server license (the number of connections is not related to SQL Server edition, but to the operating system). You'll probably hit the 1GB RAM barrier before as bottleneck.
If you want to economize, you'll have to run the db engine on the same server as the web server, with all resulting performance penalties.
So now to your points (in order of importance)
5. Yes, there is Npgsql.dll (MIT license), so there is no need for ODBC
BUT: If your code uses System.Data.SqlClient everywhere (e.g. parameters, especially when copy-pasted all over the code) then you will have to re-write more than just the SQL code (Use the abstract classes in System.Data.Common instead, or or the System.Data.IDB* interfaces).
If your code copy-pastes SqlClient everywhere, it could be argued that it needs rewriting anyway.
Ease of use:
A little more of a learning curve than SQL-Server, but overall, not too different.
pgAdmin may not fullfill your requirements if you're used to SSMS, but there are several other management & development tools you can use (e.g. Navicat) that come very close to SSMS or even top it.
4.Speed. Is PostgreSQL as fast as SQL Server?
Yes and no. It can actually be faster. Granted, because SQL-Server has had much work done on the query optimizer, PostgreSQL might be a little slower when compared to the Enterprise Ultimate version of SQL-Server (or whatever the current name of the killer-edition is).
But, who ever has that version ? If you can use all your CPUs with all cores and all the RAM you want with PostgreSQL, you will always be faster than some cut-down Express or Standard version of SQL-Server with 1 CPU and 1 to a few GB of RAM (windows limits you to 64GB in 64-Bit afaik, with Linux you can exceed the 4 GB RAM per application limit even on a 32 bit processor with the bigmem kernel and can get it to address 64 GB RAM on a 32 bit processor, not to mention the 64-Bit limits), no matter how super-over-optimized the query optimizer is on SQL-Server. That said, my personal opinion from using both pg and ms is that PostgreSql has the better query optimizer, but that's just my opinion, I have no data to back that up. Besides, windows (Windows 7) is a slow operating system (again personal opinion, no data to back it up). So when you can let PG run on Linux in headless mode, it will almost certainly be faster than SQL-Server, even the enterprise ultimate edition.
Memory footprint
You can totally configure PostgreSQL. You are in charge of the configuration file.
Can be small or large depending on how you adjust your settings. The overall PG memory footprint to achive the same as SQL-Server on Windows at comparative speed will be quite a bit lower, this is especially true when you run it in headless mode on Linux (no server GUI).
Cost
Yes, quite obviously PostgreSQL wins out here.
Do not forget: It's not just the Server licensing costs we talk about, but also the operating system, and remote access (e.g. additional very expensive Citrix licenses on Windows compared to free SSH access on Linux).
And the other thing: PostgreSQL is OpenSource and Free. If you compare it to SQL-Server, you should not compare it to the Ultimate Enterprise Edition of SQL server (and windows server), but with the version you could actually afford. PostgreSQL however will always be the one free ultimate all-inclusive all-free all-opensource BSD license edition. If you compare the features of PostgreSQL to the Sql-Server Ultimate Enterprise Edition, you'll also have to compare the costs to the ultimate enterprise edition as well (and in 99% of cases, you'll find it not worth the price).
2. Is it ready for primetime?
Yes actually Skype and WhatsApp runs its database on PostgreSQL.
You'll find it has some problems (bad error messages - connection disconnected) when you try to run a 50+ MB insert scripts, but Microsoft's SSMS crashes long before that amount.
Summa summarum, PG probably is more ready for PrimeTime than SQL-Server.
PG has has had paging for almost 10 years now (MySQL as well as SQL-Standard syntax compliant) , SQL server just got that feature with SQL-2012, only standard-compliant.
You can simply xcopy deploy PostgreSQL, works perfectly without admin rights
PG has XML support, just like SQL-Server
PG has JSON support, SQL Server? I believe they are still fully invested in thinking that XML is the future - and purposely crippling the web as a platform. (they are adding JSON support now for SQL-Server 2016 CTP, but it stores data as nvarchar, so you won't be able to set (fulltext) indices on specific JSON-fields like you can on PostgreSQL)
PG has HSTORE support (associative array column), SQL-Server doesn't
PG has array columns. Arrays are a core part of programming, except in SQL Server, where they don't exist (try parametrize an IN-clause)...
PG has had spatial support for a long time, SQL-Server's spatial support is relatively new and relies on .NET extensions and is object-oriented (hello RELATIONAL database? )
PG has the better and faster fulltext search (personal opinion, not backed up by data because it's as clear as it's clear that Google-Chrome is faster than IE 8)
PG has companies offering commercial support, just like Microsoft does for SQL-Server; the advantage is that you actually get your bugs/feature-requests fixed for your money on PG support. You probably know Microsoft support, so I'll spare you any further rants of mine ...
PG has IPv6 support, Microsoft ?
PG performs normal under heavy load, with SQL-Server on Windows we've had some strange issues that appear and disappear at random (Heisenbugs ?).
SQL Server still to this day deploys pessimistic concurrency out of the box, PG doesn't
Compression out of the box. In SQL Server, compression is an "Enterprise Edition+" feature which means you are spending the cost of at least 1 dev in order to get the ability to use compression. Once you have paid for that ability, you still have to figure out how to implement it. Postgres does this for you out of the box, automatically and for free.
Concurrent Index Creation. This yet another feature that SQL Server is capable of doing, but only if you are able to afford Enterprise Edition. Postgres has your back on this and you can leave your wallet at home.
Indexable functions – sargability. In Postgres, you can actually index certain functions and maintain sargability. With SQL Server, BOOM - table scans - adios performance
PG employs Unicode (UTF8) by default. No longer can an incompetent predecessor cripple the entire application with horrible varchar and missing N' for string datatype like they do in SQL Server. The N' syntax still works though, so no compatibility problems if you use them.
PG supports recursive cascaded deletes, SQL server doesn't support that at all (though it actively tells you when you want to put the cascade on the referential constraint)
PG supports GREATEST(value [, ...]), LEAST(value [, ...])
Microsoft: CASE WHEN HugeExp1 > HugeExp2 THEN HugeExp1 ELSE HugeExp2 END) ...
CASE WHEN N > 2 THEN 'ROYALLY SCREWED' ...
or this very maintainable gem
SELECT ( SELECT MIN(Price) FROM ( VALUES (123),(456) ) AS AllPrices(Price) )
PG supports UTF-8 CSV files since ever, SQL server doesn't support UTF-8 CSV files prior to SQL-Server 2014 SP2 (try import the MaxMind GeoIP database - you need to write your own program for SQL-server...).
Drawbacks of PG:
Windows version ain't as stable & fast as the Linux version
No free BI-tool like SQL-Server-Reporting-Services (ok there is Eclipse BIRT, but it runs on JAVA).
On the other hand, for a bit of money you can get stimulsoft reports, which has more export formats than SSRS, and actually renders fine in browsers other than IE as well as IE > 8, unlike SSRS (2005 - 2012 so far, and so far I read SSRS 2014 is no different than 2012).
That said, if your only problem is fulltext-search with SQL-Server Express, you should take a look at Lucene.NET (Apache License).
Also, be careful if you're thinking about using SQL-Express in production:
So far we’ve considered only a few of the most obvious limitations,
but the point is that what seemed like a great idea driven by the
thought of considerable cost savings could end up being an absolute
disaster for your business. Worse, any initial cost savings you gained
from using a free product could be easily negated down the road by the
cost of disaster recovery and the damage to your business’ reputation
while an important database is down. So needless to say, despite the
appeal of its zero dollar price tag, SQL Server Express is definitely
not the right database solution to power your business.
Source: bitwizards.com
This really depends on your DB size and your comfort zone.
SQL Server Express edition is a fully functional free database up to 4GB in size; perfectly adequate for most small to mid-sized apps. (aside - IMHO, MS Licensing was the best thing ever to happen to the open source community!!)
PostgreSQL is a fully functional, free database w/o the 4Gb limitation - however, PostgreSQL follows the Oracle style of SQL and database management. If you're not familiar with that, you can run into some gotchas.
Throwing Dot Net into the mix adds a not insignificant wrinkle. Can you use .Net with PostgreSQL? Yes, but Dot Net will work better with SQL Server. Are you comfortable writing complex ODBC interface code? If yes, PostgreSQL remains a contender. If not, you'll be better off with SQL Server.
From my own personal experience, I find that PostgreSQL runs better on a linux box - lose the windows OS. I'm not very familiar with SQL Server, but I have had no issues with speed or flexibility in working with Postgres. While I can't speak to ADO.NET, I have had much success with using Postgres in the real world (under constant load). In your case, the only variable I could see is integration with ADO.NET. http://www.devart.com/dotconnect/postgresql/ may be a starting point.
As some mentioned above, this really relies on how big your DB will have to be.
Especially the difference price of a CPU-core vs the price of the licence for that core is really heavy.
CPU costs nothing in this comparision.
So if you need 16+ Cores, i would give Postgres a chance.
you will be able to buy a lot more cores for your Postgres server with the saved money.
I am Software developer, and the customers we have, have to pay much more for the Sql Server License than for all the other things together: softwaredevelopment, Clienthardware, Serverhardware, DB-Administration and so on.
Most of the time its cheaper, to buy new hardware, than to optimize your code.
But thats not true for the SQL Server CPU.
(however, you can still invest in Ram/HDDs without raising license costs)
I haven't tried using PostgreSQL with ADO.NET, but from my experience using it with MySQL, you might be better off sticking with SQL Server if you plan to use LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework.
While there are probably third party libraries that will allow you to integrate those technologies with PostreSQL, I think you'll find that things will go a lot smoother with SQL Server. Pretty much all the nice tools built into Visual Studio that make those technologies so easy to work with will only work with SQL Server.
I have developed C# application that stores and retrieves data from SQL database.
But when my client had to deploy the application he needed to install sql server express 2008 ,that is its requirement.Now he wants that software to install with no extra installing add-on.so i except for dot net framework there should not be anything extra to install.
i have seen some databases like SQL compact,SQL lite ,SQL CE and blackfishSQL but i really donot know that do they require extra install and what effort do i have to make to change my whole code according to selected database
I looked at this
Please help me
I suggest going with SQLite or Server Compact (SQL CE). They don't require extra install.
Another option is to include SQL Server Express in your setup project, so it will be installed automatically if needed.
SQLite has a reputation of being fast and robust.
However, if you like Microsoft products and you already have everything working in SQL Express, then SQL CE might be a better choice from development tools support point of view.
SQLite is by far the most popular option usually considered for such scenarios. It does not require any extra installation..the DB interface itself is available in a dll and all u need to interact with your database is the interface dll. As to the extent of efforts that would be required to port your application, it would depend on the extent to which you have used Sql Server specific SQL constructs..the closer your code is to ANSI SQL, the easier it would be to port it to any other ANSI SQL compliant database like SQLite. Usually the task becomes much easier if you have used ORM technologies in your application, since they provide an additional layer of abstraction between you client code and the database
I'm sure the original poster no longer needs this information anymore - but for the sake of others googling the same issue - let me add a bit of my own.
I'm only recently in the process of converting a C# program from using SQL Express to SQL Compact - and its relatively easy when compared to converting to a SQLite project. The code is extremely simple. Where in SQL Express you might use SqlCommand, this simply becomes SqlCeCommand. Very easy to convert from one to the other.
Is there a Toad type application for Sybase? I can't seem to find a single one! I've tried using VS 2008 but can't see the sproc source.
Am assuming Sybase ASE.
Ships with Sybase Central and SQL Advantage as part of the client tools. Sybase Central lets you manage and create tables, views, sprocs etc. SQL Advantage lets you run SQL...
Sybase Workspace is a new tool for ASE, I've never tried it. http://www.sybase.com/products/modelingdevelopment/workspace
ASE ISQL is a free tool that is also useful for running sql, but is less useful for modifiying stored procedures etc. (More of a SQL Advantage replacement). http://code.google.com/p/aseisql/
If you have money to spend then there's also Embarcadero's DBArtisan. http://www.embarcadero.com/products/dbartisan. I've used this and it's pretty good, although their support for MSSQL and Oracle is better than the Sybase support.
RazorSQL has very good Sybase support. Edit / view stored procedures, etc.
SqlDbx at http://www.sqldbx.com/. Very light-weight software promising a lot of editor features. This requires Sybase Open Client to be installed on your workstation.
But I'll recommend using Oracle SQL Developer. I'm presently working through a JDBC connection to a Sybase ASE database using this tool. This seems to be Eclipse-based, but is quite responsive and allows you to view source code for functions and procs too.
Looks like Quest now offers a Sybase version of Toad.
DBeaver is open-source and appears to work fine.
Try Embarcadero Rapid SQL. I recommend you the 7.4 version over 7.6 because it is more stable. Embarcadero Rapid SQL XE is the recent version.
Embarcadero Rapid SQL XE enables
developers and DBAs to produce high
performing SQL code at lightening
speeds. With support for all major
database platforms from a single
interface, teams can standardize on
one powerful heterogeneous SQL IDE
tool.
Squirrel SQL is open source and works pretty well
I'm using CAST SQL-Builder from CAST Software, the debugger in this tool saved me a lot of time.
For smaller websites which are view-only or require light online-editing, SQL Server 2008, Oracle, and MySQL are overkill.
In the PHP world, I used SQLite quite a bit which is a e.g. 100K file holding hundreds of records which you speak to with standard SQL.
In the .NET world, what options do we have, I've seen:
SQL Server 2008 Express (free but the files are bloated 2-10MB with just a couple records)
SQL Server Compact 3.5 (seems interesting)
Vista.db (not free?)
What about SQLite with .NET, have any of you had success with that?
Any other small, no-nonsense, SQL databases for .NET there?
I would particularly be interested in something like SQLite but that supports CLR type system and LINQ.
Maybe this Wikipedia RDBMS comparison might help you in making your choice.
SQLite works just fine with .NET.
I second Edoode's suggestion of Firebird - that works great for me.
Be very careful when using SQL Server CE in multi-threaded applications.
I had to use Interbase at work, so I came to Firebird.
First I had to use it, now I love it.
There's a .NET Data Provider (ADO, DDEX).
U can even use it without setting up a server, like you do with SQLite (direct access to the database file).
It's actively developed and "open source".
I don't think there is any database that supports the CLR type system, even SQL server uses their own types.
Besides the already mentioned alternatives there is also Firebird
You can also have a look at db4o which is not SQL but a fully managed object store for java and .NET.