back to article What’s new in SQL 2014?

We have a live one-hour training session beaming into your screen on 12 December at 10am GMT. It’s all about SQL Server 2014 and it’s free to attend. (You can see our past training courses here, here and here.) During our December session, we will showcase and introduce the new features of SQL Server 2014 by delivering a series …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Bronze badge

Too soon for a new SQL Server?

It feels as if 2012 has barely got its foot in the door in terms of market penetration vs 2008/

4
0

true, but I think MS are trying to change the way they release their products now, aiming for a yearly update?

Also, when it comes to SQL server, MS tends to release a new version either every three or two years, apart from the gap between 2008 and 2012 though...

Actually, who knows what madness they are planning...

0
2

The gap between SQL 2008 and 2012

SQL Server 2010 was released as 2008 R2 because Microsoft hadn't finished it in time, so your concept of 2 year release cycles is accurate.

0
0
JDX
Gold badge

SQL 2014

I didn't realise SQL was shorthand for SQL Server ;)

15
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: SQL 2014

"I didn't realise SQL was shorthand for SQL Server ;)"

Pretty much. Except maybe in freetarded companies...

2
15

Re: SQL 2014

"Pretty much. Except maybe in freetarded companies.."

Erm... What about "Oracled" companies?

Yes, I too was expecting an article about the SQL language "standard" being updated, not SQL Server. I think it's very bad that "SQL" is becoming synonymous with a single database product (if this is true).

13
0
Bronze badge

Re: SQL 2014

As someone who works as a contractor almost exclusively with SQL Server in companies who predominantly use SQL Server, I have never had the impression that "SQL" was synonymous with "SQL Server".

The one caveat is the occassional non technical user who tries (badly) to use the lingo.

4
0

Re: SQL 2014

I was expecting at least something about NoSQL for some reason. That or hearing that Sybase was on its way back in to the game...

0
1
Silver badge

Re: SQL 2014

"I didn't realise SQL was shorthand for SQL Server ;)"

It's actually shorthand for badge-engineered Sybase.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: SQL 2014

SQL is a standard.

SQL Server is a product.

It's normal professional courtesy to refer to products by their correct names. It's also sensible and considerate to avoid ambiguity, especially when all it takes is to add a single word ("Server").

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: SQL 2014

"Yes, I too was expecting an article about the SQL language "standard" being updated, not SQL Server"

...exactly why I read this article too.

Wake up, world - 'SQL' stands for 'Structured Query Language', and has done since long before a certain large company decided to release their own implementation.

Why DO people call "Sybase SQL Server" = "Sybase", but call "Microsoft SQL Server" = "SQL" by the way? They were once the same product, in fact.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: SQL 2014

"shorthand for badge-engineered Sybase."

no sybase code in there - not for over 12 years

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: SQL 2014

What Mr. Welsh says above. Can we please change the title of this article?

5
0

Will it crash just like azure?

Never worked out why people would pay for something that can be Open source and Free any how

2
5
Anonymous Coward

And which free, open source software can do what MS SQL Server does, or Oracle or DB/2 come to that?

I speak as a user of and fan of MySQL, which I've been using for years, but outside of the core database engine, it's just not up to the level of the commercial packages. From my experience with the others FOSS alternatives, the same applies. Hell - Most of them don't even have backup agents for Networker/NetBackup/TSM, and this is a very good measure of readiness for Enterprise use.

4
3
Bronze badge
Pint

@AC 14:56

I speak as a user of and fan of MySQL, which I've been using for years, but outside of the core database engine, it's just not up to the level of the commercial packages. From my experience with the others FOSS alternatives, the same applies. Hell - Most of them don't even have backup agents for Networker/NetBackup/TSM, and this is a very good measure of readiness for Enterprise use.

As you are a fan of MySQL, perhaps you have not tried Postgres. It does the Networker/NetBackup/TSM backup thing. Writing as someone who has created Oracle, Rdb, Informix, SQL Server, Sybase, and other SQL based business applications, I have been favorably impressed by PostgreSQL - MySQL, not so much...

8
0
Anonymous Coward

But still MS market server share still has quite a bit of catchup to do

I make website for the real world, WordPress / Magento so I have never got round to using MSSQL in the last 10 years

1
2
Anonymous Coward

> And which free, open source software can do what MS SQL Server does, or Oracle or DB/2 come to that?

I don't know. Maybe one should ask the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, etc.? What do those products that you mention do, that they're not using them?

Horses for courses, but I wish "Enterprise" was more of a synonym with "doing serious work" and less with "we have a licensing, training, and certification business to maintain here".

1
1

"I make website for the real world, WordPress / Magento"

I take it there's an almighty hint of sarcasm in that statement?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@AC 17:24

I wouldn't be so flippant to say that I have asked Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, etc, but I do know a bit about their operation. When you're building a service from the ground up and are prepared to do serious development work on a FOSS database, pretty much any of them can be coaxed into doing whatever you want. The thing is that normal Enterprise IT doesn't have a facilities to write custom replication, backup systems, modify clustering to suit etc. They need a system which runs out of the box and can scale, MySQL for one doesn't cluster, replicate or scale well, it is however excellent as a small RDBMS for running web sites, etc. You can't (well, shouldn't) take it over a certain install size because of its clunky backup (dump the sql statements to disk, backup the dump file) which require vast amounts of space to backup the database. There is also the issue of support, Enterprise IT doesn't run non-supported software, so you're going to end up paying either way, you also lose a lot of the flexibility of the FOSSiness of the database you've chosen when you sign the support deal (I speak from bitter experience).

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Certified Microsoft Dependent

<quote> I wish "Enterprise" was more of a synonym with "doing serious work" and less with "we have a licensing, training, and certification business to maintain here".</quote>

There's a badge for that. You probably mean Certified Microsoft Dependent Business Partner, though it's not yet a Microsoft approved badge.

Other vendor-sponsored certifications are available, obviously. But I'd bet a pint or two that they aren't the ones you mean.

0
0

...

and no OLEDB. Back to ODBC, chaps.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I hate the abuse of the SQL = SQL Server

No one outside the specialized world can tell apart "SQL" the language standard from "SQL Server" the product. And this plays well for MS. When they hear that Oracle or DB2 do SQL they think that those are a clone of the MS product.

Benefiting from the confusion, I guess.

1
0
Bronze badge
Windows

Re: I hate the abuse of the SQL = SQL Server

You mean like MAPI vs. IMAP; Open Office XML vs. Open Office; or Active Directory vs. Lightweight Directory Access Protocol?

3
0

Re: I hate the abuse of the SQL = SQL Server

@AC 16:17

TBH, yes, those are the cleaners with a tie ... throw them out !

0
0
Bronze badge

SQL:2011

To give the hacks at this estimable organ some leeway - the language standard is written as SQL:2014 not SQL 2014

Or mistakenly SQL-2014

0
0
Silver badge

Re: SQL:2011

It's still shamelessly sloppy.

1
0
Windows

SQL 2014

So where is the article about the new features ofthe 2014 SQL standard ???

True, I know the spelling of the standard takes a hyphen, but omitting both MS and Server in the title of that article made me think they were talking standard ... I mean, the product name is MS SQL Server 2014, the standard SQ-2014, now, which is closer ? Right !

Damn cleaners strike again !

Ping me when MS SQL Server can do something like Oracle RAC .... until then, utter waste of money, for smaller systems you have Postgres, for clusters Oracle RAC - MS replication ? LOL - talking from experience.

0
1

We can all learn

The article from El Reg is advertising a one-hour training session (or, in typical cynical forum talk, advertorial).

Maybe, if you'd like to see the new features in MSSQL Server 2014, you could attend. And maybe learn something.

Oracle RAC is, by all accounts, a great product; it is also very complex, costs a great deal of money and requires extortionate maintenance fees. MSSQL Server has several techniques available for High Availability and/or Disaster Recovery; not only replication. If your budget is 6-figures by all means look at RAC. For most companies, in most scenarios, RAC is far too expensive and far too complex. Even MSSQL Server Enterprise Edition is too expense for most companies. And it is frustrating that most of the HA features require Enterprise Edition. Still cheaper than Oracle though.

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums