Talk:Microsoft SQL Server

SQL Server 2000 section

I heard Steve Ballmer pronounce SQL Server as Sequel Server. So someone, put the pronounciation in the article. I don't know the Wikipedia editing punctuation.

Removed the section on SQL Server 2000 under "History" as it contained just garbage - it was the following:

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 is a relational database management system (RDBMS) that offers enough administrative tools for database development, maintenance and administration.

1.Enterprise Manager is the main administrative console for SQL Server installations. It provides tree view of all of the SQL Server installations on network. We can perform high-level administrative functions that affect one or more servers, schedule common maintenance tasks or create and modify the structure of individual databases.

2.Query Analyzer is a quick method for performing queries against any of one of the SQL Server databases. It's a great way to quickly get information out of a database in response to a user request, test queries before implementing them in other applications, We can execute administration taks, create/modify Stored Procedures, Functions and Views, etc.

This is most commonly used Version by the Developers. It has all generic features for Microsoft Applications. For Microsoft Visual Studio 2003, this is having enough features. But for Microsoft Visual Studio 2005, some more features required, namely Long Text (more than 8000 chars for varchar). Any way this is acceptable for most cases.

None of the text was about this version, Enterprise Manager and Query Analyser are tools that had been in SQL Server for years, and all the text was rubbish anyway

Cleanup

Delete Geography piece. There no point stating every app it can run or control

Version history

I'm surprised that this article doesn't have a section on the release history of SQL Server, and there doesn't seem to be a separate article on the topic. I've been using SQL since 4.2, so I know it's got a long and storied past.

I would have just added a section, but some of the comments on this talk page make it sound like there used to be a history section, but it's been removed (I haven't walked the [extensive] edit history to see). Any reason? EJSawyer (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing, I came here for a version history too (Windows NT has one, SQL Server could surely use one too).

I did a binary search on the revisions; this edit blanked the entire "History" section which included the version history. This seems to be a rare case of pure vandalism that was missed. I've restored the section. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Great catch, thanks! Stupid vandals. Haakon (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Copying mdf files

I've removed a fragment where it said you can just move mdf files to copy databases. It was wrong because:

1. You also need *.ldf files.
2. You HAVE TO stop all SQL Server services (or detach the database you want to move).
3. You CANNOT move master and probably other databases from a computer to a computer.
4. Even changing your computer name might break your server (the name is saved to system db and not updated automatucally).
5. Simply moving mdf/ldf of one database to another machine doesn't work (you have to attach it).
6. And finally, using mdf/ldf at all is not advised by Microsoft.

--Nux (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

time to split the article

I came here to read some history, but I can't help noticing that if you came here to learn about SQL Server, you'd find slim pickings. The history will just keep getting longer and longer. I think that it is time to split off the history into a History of SQL Server article, which would leave a short SQL Server article ready for improvement.

Unless the consensus here is that people prefer to scroll down to the most recent content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

SQL Server 2012 Express LocalDB

There's a new edition added to the SQL Server 2012 lineup: LocalDB. https://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlexpress/archive/2011/07/12/introducing-localdb-a-better-sql-express.aspx?Redirected=true

SQL CE and Windows Services

I can't find anything to support the claim that SQL CE can't run in a windows service. I believe this to be an error.

Category Sorting

There's some code at the very bottom of the page that makes Microsoft SQL Server be sorted by "SQL Server" in category lists instead of by "Microsoft SQL Server". I want to correct this, just curious if anyone has a good reason to leave it as is. I went to the category list for Database Management Systems, and looked through the "M" list trying to find this. After looking at the rest of the list I found it under "S", which is why I think it needs to be moved. Nathan (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hekaton code name

Hekaton is not the codename of the next version of SQL Server. Hekaton is the codename of "a new in-memory database capability" "which is slated to be released with the next major version of SQL Server", according to The official SQL Server blog. The same thing is said in an news article on the Microsoft Research site and another article in SQL Server Pro magazine. As for the next version of the SQL Server, nothing is clear: although SQL Server 2014 has more Google hits, the hits for SQL Server 2015 are more credible, including an Information Week article that says "If Hekaton has to wait for the next "201X" release of SQL Server, that would not be likely to be released until late 2014 (at the earliest) as SQL Server 2015, though an R2-designated 2012 release might bring it to market sooner." I will therefore remove the row regarding "SQL Server 2014" and the code name Hekaton from the "SQL Server Release History" table. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement

This article just shows all the MS stated benefits of the product. There is no critical evaluation of the product, no information whether it is data safe to use, secure to use, etc. Hmains (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)