Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: "grs" <gsmith1943@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:39:44 -0500
Dawn,
I can add this to the discussion. Three years ago the company I work for
hired outside consultants to move the internal pick system to the "new and
great Microsoft world". We not have 55 sql servers and the software is not
even close to being done. The C# code is as
spaghetti as you can get. THE COMPANY STILLS RUNS ON one mvBase Server.
Now I know some will say and they are correct that to convert a internal
system that has
been developed over 20 years can not be converted to SQL in three. But that
is not
we were told. It was stated that it could be done in 6 months because of all
the "tools" that
Microsoft has. Dawn I am sure you know of Reynolds & Reynolds, Oxford Health
Plan
and we all know of the others.
Sure it is easy to develop a one form app that you can run on a desktop but
to develop an
enterprise system it is much harder to write on in SQL than any of the Pick
flavors.
yours
grs
"Kevin Powick" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xn0e72s7svqjn2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> dawn wrote:
>
>> The MV system has a better chance at
>> spaghetti code
>
> Any application code has this potential. I don't believe it is
> relevant to the database used.
>
>> A SQL-DBMS system has the potential for "lock down" where
>> there are keepers of the gate who decide that any change has too high
>> a risk to do without a 6-month project
>
> This is a management issue that, again, I don't believe is relevant to
> the database used.
>
>
>> one of the
>> most common scenarios for RI is built right into MV in terms of a
>> parent-child relationship. Most weak entities have RI with their
>> parent entities simply by being part of the same entity (translation:
>> there are multivalues and associated MVs in MV systems).
>
> Multi-value parent/child relationships are not true RI, but rather a
> representation of the logical model allowed by MV systems. An example
> of true RI at the DB level is not allowing the deletion of a customer
> record when transaction records for the customer still exist. Any
> enforcement of of RI in a multi-value system is created at the
> application level and has nothing to do with the multi-values
> themselves.
>
>> That's great. I didn't know you could safely leave a Win O/S alone.
>> I would think that at least a weekly application of security patches
>> would be in order
>
> The majority of security patches, IMO, really only apply to machines
> "exposed" to the Internet. How often is your production DB system in
> this position?
>
> However, you are correct that security patch application has caused
> problems for MS systems in the past, sometimes "breaking" existing
> applications.
>
>> I'm definitely concerned about this area -- scalability & performance
>> with SQL Server, although I know that it scales much better than it
>> once did.
>
> All I can say is test it. All the benchmarks in the world won't mean a
> thing if the database won't perform in your situation.
>
>> I'm a little more forward leaning than that.
>
> Like tilting at windmills?
>
>> SQL is on its last leg
>> before it is in the same category as COBOL -- not dead, but no one
>> picks it if they don't have to
>
> I really don't think this is the case. IT is always changing and
> someday there may be something better, but I don't see it coming soon
> enough to make it an issue for me. Too many big players with way too
> much invested in the DB products to see RDBMS on it's last legs anytime
> soon, IMO.
>
> --
> Kevin Powick
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: dawn
- Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: Kevin Powick
- Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- References:
- Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: dawn
- Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: Kevin Powick
- Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: dawn
- Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: Kevin Powick
- Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: dawn
- Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- From: Kevin Powick
- Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- Prev by Date: Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- Next by Date: Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- Previous by thread: Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- Next by thread: Re: Cost of ownership: MV vs. SQL Server
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|