Talk:Microsoft SQL Server

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Databases / Computer science  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of database related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
 
Former good article Microsoft SQL Server was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

MSSQL 2008 has been released[edit]

Since MSSQL 2008 release (RTM, available as a download) few weeks ago, MSSQL 2005 is not the most recent version anymore. Tag "under development" can be removed from MSSQL 2008 section as well --Zigzig (talkcontribs) 14:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

has it been already? last i heard the latest release was nov ctp with another one, with compression and other features, pending, prior to feb 2008 release. --soum talk 15:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
SQL 2008 RTM is not available to the general public as of yet. The latest release is CTP-5, with CTP-6 due in Feb.SqlPac (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


in this same section rtm should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#RTM_or_RTW i had to look it up :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.46.57 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The release date for the RTM is currently set for Sep. 2008. The Feb 2008 release was a CTP. The RTM is not available. That current version needs to be changed to reflect 2005 as the most recent RTM. 69.116.242.16 (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

criticism[edit]

No criticism section? Most articles have them. Surely someone must have some criticisms of this (otherwise wonderful) database.

Most article having something is not a rationale for adding something. An article deserving something should be the rationale. And, regarding criticism, the article is very much a work in progress. There is a lot to be desired here, a detailed description of features, architecture, and yes criticism if any. If you want to add it, go ahead, if you can properly, verifiably and neutrally add them. --soum talk 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammer needs work in places, eg: "less number of active instances" should read "fewer active instances". Text is befuddled in an attempt to imitate the sound of formal language without understanding the substance thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.204.32 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Grammer"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.239.5 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fix the Version History[edit]

This is wrong:

1999 - SQL S, codenamed Yukon (version 9.0)

1999 is the SQL 2000 release (8.0), 2005 is the SQL 2005 release (version 9.0, codename Yukon)

69.116.249.76 23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't this say 2008R2 is current version (early 2010?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.105.25 (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SQL Azure is not a single version - at release it was the documented version, but it is updated regularly (quarterly?) and is now reporting Microsoft SQL Azure (RTM) - 11.0.2295.0, Feb 15 2013. Not sure how to show this in a version history table. An annotation on that line? Jackrichins (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my boldness[edit]

I removed the section that gave a "market analysis", since Wikipedia is no place for such material. We could list the major competitors, but no "analysis" should be attached. I also removed the "Future development" section, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the development has happened and something actually exists, we can include it. Haakon 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Future Development is not disqualified by "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", because not editor is making any predictions here. It is a fully authentic (and referenced) statement made by developers doing the Future Development. So, it is not a prediction made by some obscure black magic (or crystal ball or whatever you feel like) but some real stuff. I am readding it (not sure about market analysis though). If you still feel it should be removed, let sort it out here first. --soUmyaSch 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true that Microsoft has publically announced their plans, but plans are not facts from the future. I rewrote the section slightly to reflect this. Haakon 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Features[edit]

Theres nothing in this article that deescribes the features and capabilites of SQL server. Its sorely missed. --soUmyaSch 13:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

relational database rewrite[edit]

I am trying to rewrite relational database and am soliciting opinions. I am particularly interested in bringing in the practical and popular definitions of the term to counter the current article's domination by the "theoretical" crowd. Ideogram 11:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, I will review it as you progress. However, I feel, its "theoretical" content should not be given the boot in lieu of practically relevant info. --soumসৌমোyasch 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I hope to include their perspective, certainly. But the POV of Codd and Date that no current databases are relational is and should be presented as a minority view. Ideogram 11:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I second you on that. --soumসৌমোyasch 11:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

sql-server-performance.com link[edit]

Bradmcgehee insists on having a link to his site, [1]. See his arguments at my talk page and at Soumyasch's. I think the site is very advertising heavy without adding much to the links we already have. I have reverted him based on this, and others have reverted as well, so I think there is consensus against this link. It seems it should be argued here, though, and I won't engage in any revert war. Thoughts? Haakon 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

www.sql-server-performance.com, which I am the webmaster of, was started in June 2000. It currently is the largest community on the Internet devoted to SQL Server performance tuning, receiving over 250,000 unique visitors a month. The website does have advertising to support it, but it also has over 1,000 pages of original content, totalling over 1,000,000 words of original content. The advertising pays for the dedicated server and bandwidth. The website also includes a very active user forum. In fact, if you post a question in the forum, you will get an answer in hours. If a link to my website does not fit the proper criteria for inclusion, then none of the links already in the article fit the criteria. A link to my webiste greatly adds to the value of the content on this page. SQL Server performance tuning is a very big topic, which is a topic not covered in the article, nor by the other websites currently linked by the article. Also, besides Haakon, only one other person removed my link, not "others" as described above. Brad M. McGehee, 6-15-2006 User:Bradmcgehee
There are a lot of sites with good SQL Server information. Wikipedia is not for you to advertise your web site. 131.30.121.23 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, if Wikipedia is not a link directory, have you ever searched for "Playmate"? You'll get a nice listing of a whole bunch of them, following the links you'll see the homepage of Playboy is almost always linked there. I believe Playboy.com is what I would call a merely commercial site which also doesn't add much to what Wikipedia should be about. But still it is listed here. Why?

SQL-Server-Performance.com surely has advertising. But that's absolutely okay, since you are free to ignore the ads. And the site and its content is free. You don't have to register somewhere to read the content. To cut a long story short, I don't get you point removing the link here. -- 2006-06-15 Frank Kalis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Kalis (talkcontribs)

Note: user's first edit. My intent was to gather consensus from Wikipedia editors, not from sql-server-performance.com users [2]. Haakon 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't intended to be a link directory. That's the defined policy. If you see such a thing elsewhere on Wikipedia, you don't hold that up as an example of what you feel you should be doing. Please help Wikipedia by contributing to the encyclopedia, instead of by advertising other web sites. Thanks. Warrens 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can be an editor in Wikipedia, whether they are users of SQL-Server-Performance.Com or not. Their opinion is as good as any other's opinion. In fact, it may be a better opinion as they are familiar with SQL Server and the website. --Brad M. McGehee, 6-15-2006 User:Bradmcgehee


Sqlserver-qa 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)SQL-Server-Performance.com website is for a genuine reason help the SQL Server community and resolve the user problems by hosting numerous articles, topics and forums too. It is one of the best served website within the SQL Server community. The basic criteria for having an entry in WiKi is to keep informed about the SQL Server related communities.

Note: user's first edit. Haakon 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's External Links guidelines, links that are to be normally avoided those that promote a site. You are definitely using the article to promote the site. Also, sites with objectionable amounts of advertising are avoided. Your site also doesn't hold ground against this. Also blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. You yourself said you are hosting forums. And most importantly, you are to avoid a website that you own or maintain. And you've also said, the site contains over 1,000 pages of original content. Are you sure that does not violate Wikipedia's policy against Original Research. Do you have other verifiable NPOV notable sources backing up what you claim in the articles?

And if the site is as important as you claim to be, why does it need this article as a vector for promotion - it should be able to stand on its own!

One more thing: I can play this game all day with you, but I will put the back every day and every hour if I have to. Such attitude and you will have your editing privileges stripped off in no time. You do not own any article, you are merely an editor in a group of all wikipedians. Being pushy about your own version when there are many independent objections to your edits will only alienate editors against you. If you undo revertions back to your changes more than 3 times a day, you will be blocked from further editing. So please contribute harmoniously. If yu feel any information in the article is missing (note, not Links or Promotions) why not add it directly. Also, remember, that most of the readers of the articles are not DBAs, and have no interest in knowing how to do performance tuning. --soumসৌমোyasch 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi , I am Dinesh Asanka contributing editor to the www.sql-server-performance.com. This is the only site that is devoted to sql server performance. This site is one of the few sites that give users answers in few minutes. Among the moderators there are microsoft MVPs. So I don't think it will require that much of analysis to say www.sql-server-performance.com link should exists there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.247.234.93 (talkcontribs)

Quick answers is not a criterion of Wikipedia policies --soumসৌমোyasch 06:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Life is too short for dealing with self-appointed moralists, such as those which hang out at Wikipedia. The world has way too many of these. Look at Hitler, Sadam Hussein, and more of the same ilk. Who needs Wikipedia? Guys and girls, get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmcgehee (talkcontribs)

---

As a compromise, perhaps this link could be added: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/community/relcommunities.mspx

Communities are generally user responses. As such they fail Wikipedia's policy of original research. Hence they cant be included here, even if its operated by the company producing the software. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OR applies to article content, not to sites linked to on articles. Though there may be other grounds for removing this link, OR is not one of them.Cadr 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking something else while making that comment. My apologies. But still EL guidelines against blogs and forums go against this link. --soumসৌমোyasch 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent idea. That way you get equal coverage of all communities, without having to repeat the links in the article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sql mvp (talkcontribs)

WP:NOADS is why we don't try to put such links here.

Biztalk Server 2006 and SQL Server 2005[edit]

They were not released alongside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanPapp (talkcontribs)

Page organization[edit]

This article feels awkward with a note about the slammer virus in the middle. Could it be organized differently to include a section on threats to MS SQL 2000?

76.187.219.94 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Compact and Embedded editions[edit]

... which come with Visual Studio Orcas and Windows SharePoint Services V3 are not described at all. --82.179.218.10 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiversion concurrency control[edit]

I know this is truth and usefull, but I have no time to find references. Perhaps some other user could do that...

Prior to version 2005, if a user changes a row and does not commit, other users of read commited (or higher level) transactions are locked while reading that row. This behavior was different from Oracle database, which always used Multiversion concurrency control, on which instead of locking, the last commited version of row is returned to other users, which can continue work. This caused many costumers to experience problems while porting from Oracle database, mostly because of bad handling of locks. In version 2005, Multiversion concurrency control was added to SQL Server, but it still uses the more traditional Two-phase locking approach by default. It must be noticed that OLTP applications usually perform worst with Multiversion concurrency control when compared to Two-phase locking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.180.36.130 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Slammer for President![edit]

Voting system's worm-infected SQL server lost 18,000 votes for Jennings in the scandalous ballot vs. Buchanan, case heads to SCOTUS now. Article is here: http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9019560 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talkcontribs)

Sounds like a good reference for the SQL slammer (computer worm) article. -- Mikeblas 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Microsoft Visual Studio. --soum talk 04:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

External link for SQL Server PDF FAQ[edit]

One of the most popular request I have received on this blog is to create one page which list all the SQL Server FAQs. SQL Server technology is very broad as well very deep. This is my humble attempt to list few of the daily used details in one page. Let me know your opinion and suggestion. Download SQL Server FAQ Sheet in PDF format http://www.pinaldave.com/blogfolder/faqx.pdf I think this should be allowed on the page of SQL Server http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SQL_Server Pinaldave (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Pinal

Now coming back to the link. Please read WP:EL, thats the policy that defines what can be allowed as a valid external link. The FAQ you want to link is just a tabulation of data types and functions available for use in T-SQL queries. More or less the information is already covered in the DotNet4All Factsheet. There is no need for duplication. This is not an endorsement of one site over other, this is just removal of redundancy. Plus, Wikipedia articles are supposed to only give an overview of the topic, not be any in-depth reference; nor a programmer's reference manual either. So even if the DotNet4All factsheet does not cover all of the data types or functions, it provides a lot more info than the FAQ, which makes it a more suitable External link. --soum talk 10:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

illustration[edit]

I've removed the SQL architecture illustration as it's completely original research and unreferenced. It's also got many errors. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not unreferenced. Its based on ref #1. If you see any error, WP:SOFIXIT. Its a plain SVG file. --soum talk 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The errors are numerous; my fix is to remove it. It remains unreferenced as there is no citation in this article or in the article associated with the image. Reference #1 is a book of more than 450 pages; references are intended to be specific. (That's a problem for this whole article, so I've tagged it with {{pagenumbers}}.) I've again removed this image from the article so that readers are not misled or confused. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing GA[edit]

Ysaias Portes I passed the article, as it had no problems I could see. Please review others at WP:GAN. I also suggest a FA nomination.Bettering the Wiki 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the substantial problems in this article is that it doesn't set the context for the subject. "Microsoft SQL Server" refers both to the server itself--a program that stores and retrieves data while answering queries from clients in the SQL lanauge; as well as a package that includes several other servers, tools, and utilities. The recently removed "architecture of SQL Server" illustration referred to the DBMS server itself, as does some of the text; other parts of the text refer to the whole suite. Is an article with such a fundamental issue still considered "good", or should this approval be re-evaluated? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically this article reads as if written by Microsoft's marketing department. Definitely not a GA. 193.166.138.57 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2008 logo?[edit]

Is it appropriate to use the 2008 logo? This version of the product hasn't yet shipped. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

With no rationale provided for using the unreleased logo, I've reverted the article to reference the current logo. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

This article says that "SQL Server normally supports up to 2 GB memory on x86 hardware". Fact is, though that SQL Server is large address aware and can use 3 gigs of RAM on x86 hardware. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit! 3 whole GBs! Now that's a highly scalable, serious product for business. 3 GB max LOL! Inertia is the only thing microsoft has going for it!

SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition was able to access up to 64 GB on x86 hardware, using Windows 2000 Datacenter Edition (see [3]). SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008 Enterprise Edition are able to access the maximum memory supported by the operating system, that's 64 GB on 32-bit Windows 2008 Server Enterprise Edition and 2 TB on 64-bit Windows 2008 Server Enterprise Edition. (see [4], [5] and [6]). Razvan Socol (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Editions and Licencing[edit]

I'd like to see some clarification of "Editions". Each sql version (7/2000/2005 etc.) has had different names for similar editions (Eg. MDSE/Express 2005). It is not clear in the editions section which edition applies to which version.

I'd also like to see some information on licencing models. Not sure if even MS understand their own licencing, so that may be a real challange. Not looking for commercial info, just the different methods avilable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.94.241 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SQLServerManagementStudio.JPG[edit]

The image Image:SQLServerManagementStudio.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

raerrtaeg ?[edit]

I'm having trouble with the word "raerrtaeg" which appears in the second paragraph of the SQL 2008 section. Typo? Greek? The whole sentence is: "Other new data types raerrtaeg include specialized date and time types and a Spatial data type for location-dependent data.[6]" Sawatzky (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Daryl S.

Why is MS-SQL the language linked to SQL[edit]

I wonder why in the first paragraph the language MS-SQL is linked to SQL. Isn't MS-SQL a programming language, or whatever format itself? Can someone explain what MS-SQL programming language is? --Tlrmq (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OS?[edit]

Is this an OS or an application? If application, what OS does it run on? What plaform does it run on? 32-bit? 64-bit? Lots fo basic questions not addressed. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is SQL on my home laptop running Vista? Is it performing functions in the background while I surf? I don't even know what a relational database is/does... Would be nice if the article gave a layman's explanation in the intro.E2a2j (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I tried to address both issues. As for which OS and what-not, look at the infobox. Fleet Command (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

SQL Server 2000 section[edit]

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[edit]

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

Version history[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

[edit]

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)