Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Are people choosing SQL Server independently of the Microsoft ecosystem? My understating is that you typically use it because you’re forced to choose a MS product.



SQL Server is a terrific product. And I detest most things Microsoft.


Us it, though? I worked with it tangentially and found it deficient compared to Postgres. Why pay for a product that's worse than the best free product? In the old days there was a question of who to pay for support that was easier to answer for proprietary DBs, but with cloud services that answer is "you already pay your cloud provider".


I wish Microsoft paid more attention to T-SQL though. It’s an atrociously primitive language in some ways. There is no “record” or “struct” type of any kind, table-valued functions are not composable, an error in one line may throw an exception or just continue execution to the next line depending on whether TRY..CATCH exists at some higher level… to name just a few grievances of many I accumulated over the years.

It can work well performance-wise and security-wise, but programming it can be quite a pain, and I feel that’s unnecessarily so, considering what resources Microsoft has at their disposal.


Their query optimizer is incredible. Unfortunately that lets people get away with truly horrifying queries or views nested a dozen layers deep until it falls over.


Except when you need to scale.


this of course is false… it scales fine if you know what you are doing.


It is of course true... it is well known that SQL Server scales to department level, but Oracle scales to company level. This is true inside Microsoft and Oracle as well. Inside Microsoft, they have a bug database per division but Oracle has a single database for the entire company. Ask people who work at those companies.

See also scalability sections in these artcles:

https://airbyte.com/data-engineering-resources/oracle-vs-sql...

https://futuramo.com/blog/oracle-vs-sql-server-head-to-head-...


if it is good for SO it should be good for most :)

https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/09/21/what-was-stack-overflo...


You don't believe that web visitors are directly querying SQL Server, right? I can believe they are storing their employee database in SQL Server... they have hundreds of employees.


do some research and then come back here… coming with shit like “you don’t believe they are querying sql server directly” is childish and unprofessional.


This is true for most databases though .

How much is out of the box or simple easy to access configuration not magic incantations either you need expensive courses to know or be battle hardened with years of experience is the question really


Agreed with the other person. It's a great database. I wouldn't choose it for a startup over Postgres, but it is extremely capable.


I would use it if it supported backup/restore over unix pipes / ssh.


If it supports backup to a file, you can have it write to a named pipe and from there to wherever.

I used this hack for backing up Oracle 30 years ago.

Something like 'mknod p backup.dmp; oradump .... file=backup; dd if=backup.dmp | ssh othermachine receiver-process'


Not necessarily. That won't work if the backup uses apis that a pipe doesn't support, like seek or reading back from the file.


Sure; does any backup actually do that? I guess it's possible.

Backups (at least db backups) used to be made with the assumption that the backup device is tape.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: