From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Mon Aug 14 12:26:52 2017
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:26:52 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Installation is totally forked
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1h-q0-Q_OWSYoAgwPd5auhrKhM_qAtdwXp=7FQqKFmsng@mail.gmail.com>

I don't know what I did or how I did it, but all my SQL Server
installations are completely forked. I tried to nuke the entire c:\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server directory, without success. I tried running the
Setup.exe for SQL 2014 and 2016, and in both cases, almost immediately I
get a msgbox that contains no message; its title says SQL Server Setup and
there is no message, just a red X in a circle. Thinking that the downloads
may have gone awry, I re-downloaded and made new DVDs, with the same result

I'm at my wits' end. Any suggestions?

A.

-- 
Arthur

From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Fri Aug 18 14:30:24 2017
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:30:24 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>

I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:

a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
Windows nor SQL Server;
b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
basis).

What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
there:

a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
costs;

b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.

After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?

Thanks,
Arthur
-- 
Arthur

From jbartow at winhaven.net  Sat Aug 19 21:25:11 2017
From: jbartow at winhaven.net (John Bartow)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 02:25:11 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BY1PR11MB0133C56FBC32B864EDE30BE2D8860@BY1PR11MB0133.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

What about a firm with an application directly tied to SQLServer? Shouldn't matter what platform the DBserver sits on. 25 years ago I was using Informix DB on a Unix server and all of my clients were on WinNT.

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:30 PM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:

a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither Windows nor SQL Server;
b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.), virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual basis).

What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
there:

a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and costs;

b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.

After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?

Thanks,
Arthur
--
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From accessd at shaw.ca  Sat Aug 19 22:55:42 2017
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:55:42 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR11MB0133C56FBC32B864EDE30BE2D8860@BY1PR11MB0133.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY1PR11MB0133C56FBC32B864EDE30BE2D8860@BY1PR11MB0133.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <791817602.389337532.1503201342588.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>

It is interesting to note that MS SQL can now be installed on Linux:

Check out the following; Installation guidance for SQL Server on Linux:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-setup

It take two lines of code to install the package on an Ubuntu/Debian server. (Ubuntu is my preferred distro)

sudo apt-get update  <-- Standard cleanup line before any new installations
sudo apt-get install mssql-server <-- ...and then just install and run.

...or the more modern syntax:
sudo apt update && sudo apt mssql-server
 
Note: Haven't tried yet maybe by Christmas and rest assured there will be extended issues. ;-)

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "John R Bartow" <jbartow at winhaven.net>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 7:25:11 PM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

What about a firm with an application directly tied to SQLServer? Shouldn't matter what platform the DBserver sits on. 25 years ago I was using Informix DB on a Unix server and all of my clients were on WinNT.

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:30 PM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:

a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither Windows nor SQL Server;
b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.), virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual basis).

What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
there:

a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and costs;

b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.

After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?

Thanks,
Arthur
--
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com


_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

From accessd at shaw.ca  Sat Aug 19 23:03:16 2017
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 22:03:16 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>

An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being used and the amount of data being processed.

MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but MS SQL only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks and the Internet.

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:

a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
Windows nor SQL Server;
b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
basis).

What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
there:

a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
costs;

b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.

After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?

Thanks,
Arthur
-- 
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

From jwcolby at gmail.com  Sun Aug 20 10:40:20 2017
From: jwcolby at gmail.com (John Colby)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 11:40:20 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <6f461673-1e07-993e-26d1-2ce3a7f6c95b@Gmail.com>

https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/

http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/

http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html

https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156


On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being used and the amount of data being processed.
>
> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but MS SQL only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks and the Internet.
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>
> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:
>
> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
> Windows nor SQL Server;
> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
> basis).
>
> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
> there:
>
> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
> costs;
>
> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>
> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>
> Thanks,
> Arthur

-- 
John W. Colby


From jbartow at winhaven.net  Sun Aug 20 11:12:52 2017
From: jbartow at winhaven.net (John Bartow)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 16:12:52 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BY1PR11MB0133ECBF1D44958A63CCC857D8860@BY1PR11MB0133.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

What about a firm with an application directly tied to SQL Server? Shouldn't matter what platform the database server sits on. 25 years ago I was using Informix DB on a Unix server and all of my clients were on WinNT.


From accessd at shaw.ca  Sun Aug 20 14:38:30 2017
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:38:30 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <6f461673-1e07-993e-26d1-2ce3a7f6c95b@Gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<6f461673-1e07-993e-26d1-2ce3a7f6c95b@Gmail.com>
Message-ID: <464163733.390138454.1503257910745.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>

Thanks for the links...great reading. MS SQL is definitely in a dominant position in the database market. I personally have two MS SQL DBs, more for fun than business. 

Aside: I do not know whether I should trust the Gartner reports as the company is owned by MS. ;-)

I think, even given the number of MS SQL DBs installed, MS SQL does not collectively match the data volume of the super database stores like, AWS, Facebook, Google, the NSA, IBM etc...

This is a slightly dated overview of Google.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/

Jim  

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:40:20 AM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/

http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/

http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html

https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156


On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being used and the amount of data being processed.
>
> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but MS SQL only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks and the Internet.
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>
> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:
>
> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
> Windows nor SQL Server;
> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
> basis).
>
> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
> there:
>
> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
> costs;
>
> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>
> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>
> Thanks,
> Arthur

-- 
John W. Colby

_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

From jwcolby at gmail.com  Sun Aug 20 17:30:08 2017
From: jwcolby at gmail.com (John Colby)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:30:08 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <464163733.390138454.1503257910745.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<6f461673-1e07-993e-26d1-2ce3a7f6c95b@Gmail.com>
	<464163733.390138454.1503257910745.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <bed1f6bb-cada-1a34-0683-b32b143fe670@Gmail.com>

LOL, no, they certainly do not match the quantity of data just in 
Google, never mind facebook etc.  But those are different applications 
and SQL Server has to this point never tried to deal with that kind of 
disparate data.  And they may never do so. Relational is just different 
from "big data".


On 8/20/2017 3:38 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
> Thanks for the links...great reading. MS SQL is definitely in a dominant position in the database market. I personally have two MS SQL DBs, more for fun than business.
>
> Aside: I do not know whether I should trust the Gartner reports as the company is owned by MS. ;-)
>
> I think, even given the number of MS SQL DBs installed, MS SQL does not collectively match the data volume of the super database stores like, AWS, Facebook, Google, the NSA, IBM etc...
>
> This is a slightly dated overview of Google.
> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:40:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>
> https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/
>
> http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/
>
> http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html
>
> https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156
>
>
> On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being used and the amount of data being processed.
>>
>> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but MS SQL only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks and the Internet.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
>> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>
>> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:
>>
>> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
>> Windows nor SQL Server;
>> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
>> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
>> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
>> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
>> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
>> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
>> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
>> basis).
>>
>> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
>> there:
>>
>> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
>> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
>> costs;
>>
>> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
>> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
>> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>>
>> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
>> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arthur

-- 
John W. Colby


From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Sun Aug 20 17:34:23 2017
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:34:23 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] MariaDB v. MySQL v. SQL Server v. PostGreSQL
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1iSLXvvDt67aBjwgLgC-9jsYj2KOVAB9KeFzFfzSCxumg@mail.gmail.com>

I'm torn between MariaDB and PostGreSQL. At the moment, I have concluded
that MySQL is trailing behind the forerunners. MariaDB is a drop-in
replacement. PostGreSQL takes more work but is demonstrably way more
powerful.IMO, for serious apps MS-SQL has a long way to go to catch up to
the serious players.

Your take?

-- 
Arthur

From stuart at lexacorp.com.pg  Sun Aug 20 19:02:40 2017
From: stuart at lexacorp.com.pg (Stuart McLachlan)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:02:40 +1000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] MariaDB v. MySQL v. SQL Server v. PostGreSQL
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1iSLXvvDt67aBjwgLgC-9jsYj2KOVAB9KeFzFfzSCxumg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1iSLXvvDt67aBjwgLgC-9jsYj2KOVAB9KeFzFfzSCxumg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <599A2320.29086.50FD25E1@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>

As long as my preferred Hosting provider offers MySQL as default and WAMP Server comes 
with MySQL,  that's what I will stick with.   It's done everything I need so far.

But then, I've never been an early adopter.  If it ain't broke. don't fix it.

I'm writing this on a Windows 7 laptop which is still my primary development machine.



On 20 Aug 2017 at 18:34, Arthur Fuller wrote:

> I'm torn between MariaDB and PostGreSQL. At the moment, I have
> concluded that MySQL is trailing behind the forerunners. MariaDB is a
> drop-in replacement. PostGreSQL takes more work but is demonstrably
> way more powerful.IMO, for serious apps MS-SQL has a long way to go to
> catch up to the serious players.
> 
> Your take?
> 
> -- 
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> 
> 



From accessd at shaw.ca  Mon Aug 21 21:58:04 2017
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:58:04 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <bed1f6bb-cada-1a34-0683-b32b143fe670@Gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<6f461673-1e07-993e-26d1-2ce3a7f6c95b@Gmail.com>
	<464163733.390138454.1503257910745.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<bed1f6bb-cada-1a34-0683-b32b143fe670@Gmail.com>
Message-ID: <949250545.392882815.1503370684651.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>

You will not find me disagreeing with you.

It is the way the many surveys rate and define MS SQL. MS SQL is the greatest relational database but in its own category...

...But from what I have been told, from local leading edge computer developers, the ratings given MSSQL just doesn't seem to match their usage. Example: there are somewhere between 5 and 15K development companies in the Vancouver area and I have been told that none of them use MS SQL? None of them use MS OS for that matter. I would like to know the truth. Maybe, this is but a little back-eddy district...a small little echo chamber that does not represent the new era business model?  

https://db-engines.com/en/blog_post/54
https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_definition
http://bit.ly/2x7IwaO

Aside: I have that same argument with those that tote Adobe products as the definitive example of graphic applications. When it comes to business graphically applications, Adobe products are looked upon as desktop apps. The main players and products in the world of graphics, like digital mapping, engineering designs, data mapping and animations exist on a whole different vertical. Most of us never see the other programs.

For me, Adobe and MS SQL are just fine but I have already paid for those licences. For any new projects though, I would tend to use what is inexpensive and well supported.
 
Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:30:08 PM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

LOL, no, they certainly do not match the quantity of data just in 
Google, never mind facebook etc.  But those are different applications 
and SQL Server has to this point never tried to deal with that kind of 
disparate data.  And they may never do so. Relational is just different 
from "big data".


On 8/20/2017 3:38 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
> Thanks for the links...great reading. MS SQL is definitely in a dominant position in the database market. I personally have two MS SQL DBs, more for fun than business.
>
> Aside: I do not know whether I should trust the Gartner reports as the company is owned by MS. ;-)
>
> I think, even given the number of MS SQL DBs installed, MS SQL does not collectively match the data volume of the super database stores like, AWS, Facebook, Google, the NSA, IBM etc...
>
> This is a slightly dated overview of Google.
> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:40:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>
> https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/
>
> http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/
>
> http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html
>
> https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156
>
>
> On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being used and the amount of data being processed.
>>
>> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but MS SQL only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks and the Internet.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
>> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>
>> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:
>>
>> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
>> Windows nor SQL Server;
>> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
>> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
>> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
>> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
>> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
>> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
>> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
>> basis).
>>
>> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
>> there:
>>
>> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
>> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
>> costs;
>>
>> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
>> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
>> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>>
>> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
>> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arthur

-- 
John W. Colby

_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

From accessd at shaw.ca  Mon Aug 21 22:07:03 2017
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:07:03 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] MariaDB v. MySQL v. SQL Server v. PostGreSQL
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1iSLXvvDt67aBjwgLgC-9jsYj2KOVAB9KeFzFfzSCxumg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1iSLXvvDt67aBjwgLgC-9jsYj2KOVAB9KeFzFfzSCxumg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1019668912.392894571.1503371223929.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>

If I was going to learn another relation DB, it would be Postgress. I have been listening to a number of developer podcasts and all seem to recommend it.(?) Below is one comment from an InfoWorld article:

"...Other open source databases that constitute a threat to Oracle also showed gains. PostgreSQL, often mentioned as a possible Oracle replacement, has gained steadily since early 2014."

One of the new age databases that I would like to learn is MondoDB. Its has a host of leading edge features:

"...One big database of note making gains in DB-Engines's scoring system is MongoDB. The NoSQL document store database has reached out to enterprises over the past year with new in-memory processing, encryption, and connectors to third-party BI products. But given the newness of those features, they can't be solely responsible for MongoDB's rise in popularity; in fact, DB-Engines has been tracking a rise in interest in the product since 2013."

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:34:23 PM
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] MariaDB v. MySQL v. SQL Server v. PostGreSQL

I'm torn between MariaDB and PostGreSQL. At the moment, I have concluded
that MySQL is trailing behind the forerunners. MariaDB is a drop-in
replacement. PostGreSQL takes more work but is demonstrably way more
powerful.IMO, for serious apps MS-SQL has a long way to go to catch up to
the serious players.

Your take?

-- 
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

From aclawhon at hiwaay.net  Tue Aug 22 06:12:48 2017
From: aclawhon at hiwaay.net (aclawhon at hiwaay.net)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:12:48 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <949250545.392882815.1503370684651.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<6f461673-1e07-993e-26d1-2ce3a7f6c95b@Gmail.com>
	<464163733.390138454.1503257910745.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<bed1f6bb-cada-1a34-0683-b32b143fe670@Gmail.com>
	<949250545.392882815.1503370684651.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <20170822111248.Horde.1pnyb1Rlc08FcRfAEARjd1N@webmail.hiwaay.net>


Jim, Rocky, John, et al:

I spent some time seriously studying Microsoft SQL Server several  
years ago.  (At one point I had thoughts of trying to get certified in  
SQL Server.)  When it comes to Oracle, (which I never used and was  
never exposed to), I've always had the impression that Oracle is much  
more than a relational database.  It appears that Oracle is an  
integrated multi-function (multi-capability) software environment  
designed to run and manage large business (and Government) enterprises  
- like, say,  multinational Fortune 500 corporations.  Developing  
Oracle expertise means you don't just become a SQL guru ... you have  
to pretty much be an MBA with a fair amount of education and knowledge  
of finance, accounting, HR - and all the other "business intelligence"  
functions that are integral to the daily operation of large companies.  
  Since so few people have that kind of knowledge and understanding,  
(in addition to software development skills), that's why competent  
Oracle developers command huge salaries.  (I still remember talking  
with an Oracle expert on a flight back from D.C. in the mid-1990's  
when I was working for a defense contractor.  I told him I was an  
"Access developer" making around $32K.  (That was the most money I  
ever made - to that point - in a "professional" job, so I thought I  
was doing very well.)  This fellow didn't scoff or attempt to put  
Access down by referring to it as a "baby" database, but he did  
immediately recommended that I start studying Oracle.  I asked him how  
much money Oracle experts command?  He told me he was pulling down  
$120K annually as a consultant - which astounded me.  (This was circa  
1995.)  Highly skilled and experienced Oracle experts probably make  
(at least) 50 percent more nowadays.

I suppose anybody can learn how to write fairly simple SQL queries in  
just about any relational database management system.  That is only a  
small part of becoming truly valuable as a database expert.  You have  
to learn and understand all the other "business stuff" too.  You have  
to know how to talk to CEOs and CFOs.  It's the same in engineering.   
There are a lot of electrical, chemical, mechanical and aerospace  
engineers.  There are a lot of "software" engineers.  There aren't  
that many engineers with expertise in both engineering and software  
development.  It takes a lot of time, study and preparation to develop  
those skills.  I suppose that explains why there aren't that many  
Oracle experts - and why the few who are command such high compensation.

I don't know what all this has to do with the [relative] popularity of  
all the competing RDBM systems, but I thought I would throw in my  
$0.02 worth.

Former Access Developer Alan of Huntsville


Quoting Jim Lawrence <accessd at shaw.ca>:

> You will not find me disagreeing with you.
>
> It is the way the many surveys rate and define MS SQL. MS SQL is the  
> greatest relational database but in its own category...
>
> ...But from what I have been told, from local leading edge computer  
> developers, the ratings given MSSQL just doesn't seem to match their  
> usage. Example: there are somewhere between 5 and 15K development  
> companies in the Vancouver area and I have been told that none of  
> them use MS SQL? None of them use MS OS for that matter. I would  
> like to know the truth. Maybe, this is but a little back-eddy  
> district...a small little echo chamber that does not represent the  
> new era business model?
>
> https://db-engines.com/en/blog_post/54
> https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_definition
> http://bit.ly/2x7IwaO
>
> Aside: I have that same argument with those that tote Adobe products  
> as the definitive example of graphic applications. When it comes to  
> business graphically applications, Adobe products are looked upon as  
> desktop apps. The main players and products in the world of  
> graphics, like digital mapping, engineering designs, data mapping  
> and animations exist on a whole different vertical. Most of us never  
> see the other programs.
>
> For me, Adobe and MS SQL are just fine but I have already paid for  
> those licences. For any new projects though, I would tend to use  
> what is inexpensive and well supported.
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"  
> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:30:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>
> LOL, no, they certainly do not match the quantity of data just in
> Google, never mind facebook etc.  But those are different applications
> and SQL Server has to this point never tried to deal with that kind of
> disparate data.  And they may never do so. Relational is just different
> from "big data".
>
>
> On 8/20/2017 3:38 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>> Thanks for the links...great reading. MS SQL is definitely in a  
>> dominant position in the database market. I personally have two MS  
>> SQL DBs, more for fun than business.
>>
>> Aside: I do not know whether I should trust the Gartner reports as  
>> the company is owned by MS. ;-)
>>
>> I think, even given the number of MS SQL DBs installed, MS SQL does  
>> not collectively match the data volume of the super database stores  
>> like, AWS, Facebook, Google, the NSA, IBM etc...
>>
>> This is a slightly dated overview of Google.
>> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"  
>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:40:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>
>> https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/
>>
>> http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/
>>
>> http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html
>>
>> https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/
>>
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156
>>
>>
>> On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>>> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being  
>>> used and the amount of data being processed.
>>>
>>> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but  
>>> MS SQL only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks  
>>> and the Internet.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"  
>>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
>>> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>>
>>> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:
>>>
>>> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
>>> Windows nor SQL Server;
>>> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
>>> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
>>> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
>>> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
>>> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
>>> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
>>> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
>>> basis).
>>>
>>> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
>>> there:
>>>
>>> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
>>> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
>>> costs;
>>>
>>> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
>>> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
>>> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>>>
>>> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
>>> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Arthur
>
> --
> John W. Colby
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From garykjos at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 09:22:56 2017
From: garykjos at gmail.com (Gary Kjos)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 09:22:56 -0500
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <20170822111248.Horde.1pnyb1Rlc08FcRfAEARjd1N@webmail.hiwaay.net>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<6f461673-1e07-993e-26d1-2ce3a7f6c95b@Gmail.com>
	<464163733.390138454.1503257910745.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<bed1f6bb-cada-1a34-0683-b32b143fe670@Gmail.com>
	<949250545.392882815.1503370684651.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<20170822111248.Horde.1pnyb1Rlc08FcRfAEARjd1N@webmail.hiwaay.net>
Message-ID: <CAJ2R_p+X2OmAwvskfhdf8a=wa1esQ5sdRQC0m5obyLmfHe4mkA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Alan,

Well there is Oracle the database management system and there is
Oracle Applications the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system.
They are different things although if you use Oracle ERP you probably
run it on an Oracle Database.

The company I work for uses Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle Database
AND Oracle Applications ERP system software.  We have been migrating
parts of the business to different software though too lessening our
Oracle Applications footprint but we still use the core financials.
We use SQL Server for our website data and for some analytical stuff.
We recently have started using the Microsoft Azure database which is
kind of like a cloud based version of SQL Server.  We use different
platforms for different things.  We do new development on all of them,
to the best of my knowledge none of them are ever going to replace the
other for us.  Oh and we use Access here too.   Usually not so much
for data storage but as a query tool to get information selected and
displayed out of one or more of the main databases.

GK

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM,  <aclawhon at hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> Jim, Rocky, John, et al:
>
> I spent some time seriously studying Microsoft SQL Server several years ago.
> (At one point I had thoughts of trying to get certified in SQL Server.)
> When it comes to Oracle, (which I never used and was never exposed to), I've
> always had the impression that Oracle is much more than a relational
> database.  It appears that Oracle is an integrated multi-function
> (multi-capability) software environment designed to run and manage large
> business (and Government) enterprises - like, say,  multinational Fortune
> 500 corporations.  Developing Oracle expertise means you don't just become a
> SQL guru ... you have to pretty much be an MBA with a fair amount of
> education and knowledge of finance, accounting, HR - and all the other
> "business intelligence" functions that are integral to the daily operation
> of large companies.  Since so few people have that kind of knowledge and
> understanding, (in addition to software development skills), that's why
> competent Oracle developers command huge salaries.  (I still remember
> talking with an Oracle expert on a flight back from D.C. in the mid-1990's
> when I was working for a defense contractor.  I told him I was an "Access
> developer" making around $32K.  (That was the most money I ever made - to
> that point - in a "professional" job, so I thought I was doing very well.)
> This fellow didn't scoff or attempt to put Access down by referring to it as
> a "baby" database, but he did immediately recommended that I start studying
> Oracle.  I asked him how much money Oracle experts command?  He told me he
> was pulling down $120K annually as a consultant - which astounded me.  (This
> was circa 1995.)  Highly skilled and experienced Oracle experts probably
> make (at least) 50 percent more nowadays.
>
> I suppose anybody can learn how to write fairly simple SQL queries in just
> about any relational database management system.  That is only a small part
> of becoming truly valuable as a database expert.  You have to learn and
> understand all the other "business stuff" too.  You have to know how to talk
> to CEOs and CFOs.  It's the same in engineering.  There are a lot of
> electrical, chemical, mechanical and aerospace engineers.  There are a lot
> of "software" engineers.  There aren't that many engineers with expertise in
> both engineering and software development.  It takes a lot of time, study
> and preparation to develop those skills.  I suppose that explains why there
> aren't that many Oracle experts - and why the few who are command such high
> compensation.
>
> I don't know what all this has to do with the [relative] popularity of all
> the competing RDBM systems, but I thought I would throw in my $0.02 worth.
>
> Former Access Developer Alan of Huntsville
>
>
>
> Quoting Jim Lawrence <accessd at shaw.ca>:
>
>> You will not find me disagreeing with you.
>>
>> It is the way the many surveys rate and define MS SQL. MS SQL is the
>> greatest relational database but in its own category...
>>
>> ...But from what I have been told, from local leading edge computer
>> developers, the ratings given MSSQL just doesn't seem to match their usage.
>> Example: there are somewhere between 5 and 15K development companies in the
>> Vancouver area and I have been told that none of them use MS SQL? None of
>> them use MS OS for that matter. I would like to know the truth. Maybe, this
>> is but a little back-eddy district...a small little echo chamber that does
>> not represent the new era business model?
>>
>> https://db-engines.com/en/blog_post/54
>> https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_definition
>> http://bit.ly/2x7IwaO
>>
>> Aside: I have that same argument with those that tote Adobe products as
>> the definitive example of graphic applications. When it comes to business
>> graphically applications, Adobe products are looked upon as desktop apps.
>> The main players and products in the world of graphics, like digital
>> mapping, engineering designs, data mapping and animations exist on a whole
>> different vertical. Most of us never see the other programs.
>>
>> For me, Adobe and MS SQL are just fine but I have already paid for those
>> licences. For any new projects though, I would tend to use what is
>> inexpensive and well supported.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"
>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:30:08 PM
>> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>
>> LOL, no, they certainly do not match the quantity of data just in
>> Google, never mind facebook etc.  But those are different applications
>> and SQL Server has to this point never tried to deal with that kind of
>> disparate data.  And they may never do so. Relational is just different
>> from "big data".
>>
>>
>> On 8/20/2017 3:38 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the links...great reading. MS SQL is definitely in a dominant
>>> position in the database market. I personally have two MS SQL DBs, more for
>>> fun than business.
>>>
>>> Aside: I do not know whether I should trust the Gartner reports as the
>>> company is owned by MS. ;-)
>>>
>>> I think, even given the number of MS SQL DBs installed, MS SQL does not
>>> collectively match the data volume of the super database stores like, AWS,
>>> Facebook, Google, the NSA, IBM etc...
>>>
>>> This is a slightly dated overview of Google.
>>>
>>> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"
>>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:40:20 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/
>>>
>>> http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html
>>>
>>>
>>> https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>>>>
>>>> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being used
>>>> and the amount of data being processed.
>>>>
>>>> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but MS SQL
>>>> only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks and the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
>>>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"
>>>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
>>>> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>>>
>>>> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given
>>>> that:
>>>>
>>>> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
>>>> Windows nor SQL Server;
>>>> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
>>>> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years;
>>>> not
>>>> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB
>>>> or
>>>> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
>>>> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the
>>>> aforementioned
>>>> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
>>>> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an
>>>> annual
>>>> basis).
>>>>
>>>> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
>>>> there:
>>>>
>>>> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
>>>> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles
>>>> and
>>>> costs;
>>>>
>>>> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people
>>>> keep
>>>> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential
>>>> porting
>>>> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>>>>
>>>> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture
>>>> here.
>>>> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Arthur
>>
>>
>> --
>> John W. Colby
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dba-SQLServer mailing list
>> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
>> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> dba-SQLServer mailing list
>> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
>> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>



-- 
Gary Kjos
garykjos at gmail.com

From accessd at shaw.ca  Tue Aug 22 09:31:52 2017
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:31:52 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2R_p+X2OmAwvskfhdf8a=wa1esQ5sdRQC0m5obyLmfHe4mkA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1i7jCxjPNyZspjf3dN-cHBkO4cDKb+uk529_WUeEpx3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1068917239.389342995.1503201796536.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<6f461673-1e07-993e-26d1-2ce3a7f6c95b@Gmail.com>
	<464163733.390138454.1503257910745.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<bed1f6bb-cada-1a34-0683-b32b143fe670@Gmail.com>
	<949250545.392882815.1503370684651.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
	<20170822111248.Horde.1pnyb1Rlc08FcRfAEARjd1N@webmail.hiwaay.net>
	<CAJ2R_p+X2OmAwvskfhdf8a=wa1esQ5sdRQC0m5obyLmfHe4mkA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <520647053.393649969.1503412312233.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>

I have heard that MS SQL on Linux is going to be a game changer. What do you think?

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "garykjos" <garykjos at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:22:56 AM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

Hi Alan,

Well there is Oracle the database management system and there is
Oracle Applications the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system.
They are different things although if you use Oracle ERP you probably
run it on an Oracle Database.

The company I work for uses Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle Database
AND Oracle Applications ERP system software.  We have been migrating
parts of the business to different software though too lessening our
Oracle Applications footprint but we still use the core financials.
We use SQL Server for our website data and for some analytical stuff.
We recently have started using the Microsoft Azure database which is
kind of like a cloud based version of SQL Server.  We use different
platforms for different things.  We do new development on all of them,
to the best of my knowledge none of them are ever going to replace the
other for us.  Oh and we use Access here too.   Usually not so much
for data storage but as a query tool to get information selected and
displayed out of one or more of the main databases.

GK

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM,  <aclawhon at hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> Jim, Rocky, John, et al:
>
> I spent some time seriously studying Microsoft SQL Server several years ago.
> (At one point I had thoughts of trying to get certified in SQL Server.)
> When it comes to Oracle, (which I never used and was never exposed to), I've
> always had the impression that Oracle is much more than a relational
> database.  It appears that Oracle is an integrated multi-function
> (multi-capability) software environment designed to run and manage large
> business (and Government) enterprises - like, say,  multinational Fortune
> 500 corporations.  Developing Oracle expertise means you don't just become a
> SQL guru ... you have to pretty much be an MBA with a fair amount of
> education and knowledge of finance, accounting, HR - and all the other
> "business intelligence" functions that are integral to the daily operation
> of large companies.  Since so few people have that kind of knowledge and
> understanding, (in addition to software development skills), that's why
> competent Oracle developers command huge salaries.  (I still remember
> talking with an Oracle expert on a flight back from D.C. in the mid-1990's
> when I was working for a defense contractor.  I told him I was an "Access
> developer" making around $32K.  (That was the most money I ever made - to
> that point - in a "professional" job, so I thought I was doing very well.)
> This fellow didn't scoff or attempt to put Access down by referring to it as
> a "baby" database, but he did immediately recommended that I start studying
> Oracle.  I asked him how much money Oracle experts command?  He told me he
> was pulling down $120K annually as a consultant - which astounded me.  (This
> was circa 1995.)  Highly skilled and experienced Oracle experts probably
> make (at least) 50 percent more nowadays.
>
> I suppose anybody can learn how to write fairly simple SQL queries in just
> about any relational database management system.  That is only a small part
> of becoming truly valuable as a database expert.  You have to learn and
> understand all the other "business stuff" too.  You have to know how to talk
> to CEOs and CFOs.  It's the same in engineering.  There are a lot of
> electrical, chemical, mechanical and aerospace engineers.  There are a lot
> of "software" engineers.  There aren't that many engineers with expertise in
> both engineering and software development.  It takes a lot of time, study
> and preparation to develop those skills.  I suppose that explains why there
> aren't that many Oracle experts - and why the few who are command such high
> compensation.
>
> I don't know what all this has to do with the [relative] popularity of all
> the competing RDBM systems, but I thought I would throw in my $0.02 worth.
>
> Former Access Developer Alan of Huntsville
>
>
>
> Quoting Jim Lawrence <accessd at shaw.ca>:
>
>> You will not find me disagreeing with you.
>>
>> It is the way the many surveys rate and define MS SQL. MS SQL is the
>> greatest relational database but in its own category...
>>
>> ...But from what I have been told, from local leading edge computer
>> developers, the ratings given MSSQL just doesn't seem to match their usage.
>> Example: there are somewhere between 5 and 15K development companies in the
>> Vancouver area and I have been told that none of them use MS SQL? None of
>> them use MS OS for that matter. I would like to know the truth. Maybe, this
>> is but a little back-eddy district...a small little echo chamber that does
>> not represent the new era business model?
>>
>> https://db-engines.com/en/blog_post/54
>> https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_definition
>> http://bit.ly/2x7IwaO
>>
>> Aside: I have that same argument with those that tote Adobe products as
>> the definitive example of graphic applications. When it comes to business
>> graphically applications, Adobe products are looked upon as desktop apps.
>> The main players and products in the world of graphics, like digital
>> mapping, engineering designs, data mapping and animations exist on a whole
>> different vertical. Most of us never see the other programs.
>>
>> For me, Adobe and MS SQL are just fine but I have already paid for those
>> licences. For any new projects though, I would tend to use what is
>> inexpensive and well supported.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"
>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:30:08 PM
>> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>
>> LOL, no, they certainly do not match the quantity of data just in
>> Google, never mind facebook etc.  But those are different applications
>> and SQL Server has to this point never tried to deal with that kind of
>> disparate data.  And they may never do so. Relational is just different
>> from "big data".
>>
>>
>> On 8/20/2017 3:38 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the links...great reading. MS SQL is definitely in a dominant
>>> position in the database market. I personally have two MS SQL DBs, more for
>>> fun than business.
>>>
>>> Aside: I do not know whether I should trust the Gartner reports as the
>>> company is owned by MS. ;-)
>>>
>>> I think, even given the number of MS SQL DBs installed, MS SQL does not
>>> collectively match the data volume of the super database stores like, AWS,
>>> Facebook, Google, the NSA, IBM etc...
>>>
>>> This is a slightly dated overview of Google.
>>>
>>> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"
>>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:40:20 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/
>>>
>>> http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html
>>>
>>>
>>> https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>>>>
>>>> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being used
>>>> and the amount of data being processed.
>>>>
>>>> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but MS SQL
>>>> only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks and the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
>>>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"
>>>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
>>>> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>>>
>>>> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given
>>>> that:
>>>>
>>>> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
>>>> Windows nor SQL Server;
>>>> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
>>>> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years;
>>>> not
>>>> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB
>>>> or
>>>> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
>>>> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the
>>>> aforementioned
>>>> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
>>>> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an
>>>> annual
>>>> basis).
>>>>
>>>> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
>>>> there:
>>>>
>>>> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
>>>> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles
>>>> and
>>>> costs;
>>>>
>>>> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people
>>>> keep
>>>> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential
>>>> porting
>>>> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>>>>
>>>> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture
>>>> here.
>>>> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Arthur
>>
>>
>> --
>> John W. Colby
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dba-SQLServer mailing list
>> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
>> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> dba-SQLServer mailing list
>> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
>> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>



-- 
Gary Kjos
garykjos at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 10:42:43 2017
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:42:43 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>

Can you think of a replacement for SSMS, ideally free? I don't need all the
functionality of SSMS, but I do need to be able to create queries, ideally
graphically, execute them, and change them into views.

You might wonder why I need this, since I already have the complete SQL
Express package. It's a long story but I'll cut to the chase. A client has
licensed a package from a vendor. This package runs on a server in the
vendor's office, and is connected to over the net. The vendor has denied
permission for me to install SQL Express on said machine, and even to tell
me how to connect to said server remotely (otherwise I could run my copy of
SSMS and connect remotely). So, at least for the moment, I'm pretty much
stuck. It's not like I have a large number of tasks to perform. Just create
a few queries and a couple of Views, which would subsequently serve as the
data source for a couple of Crystal Reports not provided by the vendor's
package.

Any suggestions shall be gratefully received.

Arthur

-- 
Arthur

From Damien.Solodow at harrison.edu  Tue Aug 22 10:45:51 2017
From: Damien.Solodow at harrison.edu (Damien Solodow)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:45:51 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1733E3ACA9C03DDC0910E36AF5840@CY4PR11MB1733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

There is a stand-alone SSMS package (which is free): https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/ssms/download-sql-server-management-studio-ssms

Only other thing I can think of off-hand would be Visual Studio Code with the mssqlserver extension...

DAMIEN SOLODOW
IT Engineering Lead
317.447.6033 (office)
HARRISON COLLEGE

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:43 AM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query

Can you think of a replacement for SSMS, ideally free? I don't need all the functionality of SSMS, but I do need to be able to create queries, ideally graphically, execute them, and change them into views.

You might wonder why I need this, since I already have the complete SQL Express package. It's a long story but I'll cut to the chase. A client has licensed a package from a vendor. This package runs on a server in the vendor's office, and is connected to over the net. The vendor has denied permission for me to install SQL Express on said machine, and even to tell me how to connect to said server remotely (otherwise I could run my copy of SSMS and connect remotely). So, at least for the moment, I'm pretty much stuck. It's not like I have a large number of tasks to perform. Just create a few queries and a couple of Views, which would subsequently serve as the data source for a couple of Crystal Reports not provided by the vendor's package.

Any suggestions shall be gratefully received.

Arthur

--
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 11:15:32 2017
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:15:32 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1733E3ACA9C03DDC0910E36AF5840@CY4PR11MB1733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY4PR11MB1733E3ACA9C03DDC0910E36AF5840@CY4PR11MB1733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1h9VUK9MKRJwxhaSHKc_OKuThqwjiUzgbF5v9YODJMiYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Since sending that email, I have found two, both of which I've heard of but
never used: Heidi SQL and Toad for SQL Server. I'll download them now and
kick their wheels.

A.

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Damien Solodow <
Damien.Solodow at harrison.edu> wrote:

> There is a stand-alone SSMS package (which is free):
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/ssms/download-sql-
> server-management-studio-ssms
>
> Only other thing I can think of off-hand would be Visual Studio Code with
> the mssqlserver extension...
>
> DAMIEN SOLODOW
> IT Engineering Lead
> 317.447.6033 (office)
> HARRISON COLLEGE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]
> On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:43 AM
> To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server <dba-sqlserver@
> databaseadvisors.com>
> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
>
> Can you think of a replacement for SSMS, ideally free? I don't need all
> the functionality of SSMS, but I do need to be able to create queries,
> ideally graphically, execute them, and change them into views.
>
> You might wonder why I need this, since I already have the complete SQL
> Express package. It's a long story but I'll cut to the chase. A client has
> licensed a package from a vendor. This package runs on a server in the
> vendor's office, and is connected to over the net. The vendor has denied
> permission for me to install SQL Express on said machine, and even to tell
> me how to connect to said server remotely (otherwise I could run my copy of
> SSMS and connect remotely). So, at least for the moment, I'm pretty much
> stuck. It's not like I have a large number of tasks to perform. Just create
> a few queries and a couple of Views, which would subsequently serve as the
> data source for a couple of Crystal Reports not provided by the vendor's
> package.
>
> Any suggestions shall be gratefully received.
>
> Arthur
>
> --
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>


-- 
Arthur

From ab-mi at post3.tele.dk  Tue Aug 22 17:19:58 2017
From: ab-mi at post3.tele.dk (Asger Blond)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:19:58 +0200
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
References: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY4PR11MB1733E3ACA9C03DDC0910E36AF5840@CY4PR11MB1733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEPJO1h9VUK9MKRJwxhaSHKc_OKuThqwjiUzgbF5v9YODJMiYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1.C4.21825.E0EAC995@n2>

Or you could just use the vba editor in any office application (Word,
Excel, Access etc.), make a reference to the adodb library, and create
your queries and views by adodb recordsets and adodb commands.
/ Asger

----- Original meddelelse -----

> Fra: Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
> Til: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
> Dato: Tir, 22. aug 2017 18:15
> Emne: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
> 
> Since sending that email, I have found two, both of which I've heard
> of but
> never used: Heidi SQL and Toad for SQL Server. I'll download them now
> and
> kick their wheels.
> 
> A.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Damien Solodow <
> Damien.Solodow at harrison.edu> wrote:
> 
> > There is a stand-alone SSMS package (which is free):
> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/ssms/download-sql-
> > server-management-studio-ssms
> >
> > Only other thing I can think of off-hand would be Visual Studio
> Code with
> > the mssqlserver extension...
> >
> > DAMIEN SOLODOW
> > IT Engineering Lead
> > 317.447.6033 (office)
> > HARRISON COLLEGE
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dba-SQLServer
> [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]
> > On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:43 AM
> > To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server <dba-sqlserver@
> > databaseadvisors.com>
> > Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
> >
> > Can you think of a replacement for SSMS, ideally free? I don't need
> all
> > the functionality of SSMS, but I do need to be able to create
> queries,
> > ideally graphically, execute them, and change them into views.
> >
> > You might wonder why I need this, since I already have the complete
> SQL
> > Express package. It's a long story but I'll cut to the chase. A
> client has
> > licensed a package from a vendor. This package runs on a server in
> the
> > vendor's office, and is connected to over the net. The vendor has
> denied
> > permission for me to install SQL Express on said machine, and even
> to tell
> > me how to connect to said server remotely (otherwise I could run my
> copy of
> > SSMS and connect remotely). So, at least for the moment, I'm pretty
> much
> > stuck. It's not like I have a large number of tasks to perform.
> Just create
> > a few queries and a couple of Views, which would subsequently serve
> as the
> > data source for a couple of Crystal Reports not provided by the
> vendor's
> > package.
> >
> > Any suggestions shall be gratefully received.
> >
> > Arthur
> >
> > --
> > Arthur
> > _______________________________________________
> > dba-SQLServer mailing list
> > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> > http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dba-SQLServer mailing list
> > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> > http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com


From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 17:25:01 2017
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:25:01 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Google Data Studio
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1gF78T1vz_xeqLJVfcQdR7-vQNXWxW7af=_9GjiWHUfEg@mail.gmail.com>

I just learned of this product and visited their site
<https://www.google.com/analytics/data-studio/>. It provides free tools for
data analytics, reports and dashboards. Apparently still in beta, it looks
really nice.

-- 
Arthur

From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 17:32:59 2017
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:32:59 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
In-Reply-To: <E1.C4.21825.E0EAC995@n2>
References: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY4PR11MB1733E3ACA9C03DDC0910E36AF5840@CY4PR11MB1733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEPJO1h9VUK9MKRJwxhaSHKc_OKuThqwjiUzgbF5v9YODJMiYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1.C4.21825.E0EAC995@n2>
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1gA_EL58syfej-LU-sszf9R+tXSnVs2pk9XFROUd3KEAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Asger,

Under normal circumstances, Asger, that approach would work. But this
vendor won't allow Office to be installed on that server, either.

Arthur

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Asger Blond <ab-mi at post3.tele.dk> wrote:

> Or you could just use the vba editor in any office application (Word,
> Excel, Access etc.), make a reference to the adodb library, and create
> your queries and views by adodb recordsets and adodb commands.
> / Asger

From accessd at shaw.ca  Wed Aug 23 22:37:50 2017
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:37:50 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <446906547.397668371.1503545870695.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>

According to Google there is at least a dozen such SSMS similar packages. Here is a link to five such products:

https://www.vladan.fr/5-free-alternatives-microsoft-sql-management-studio/

Whether they are better or not, I would not know.

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 8:42:43 AM
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query

Can you think of a replacement for SSMS, ideally free? I don't need all the
functionality of SSMS, but I do need to be able to create queries, ideally
graphically, execute them, and change them into views.

You might wonder why I need this, since I already have the complete SQL
Express package. It's a long story but I'll cut to the chase. A client has
licensed a package from a vendor. This package runs on a server in the
vendor's office, and is connected to over the net. The vendor has denied
permission for me to install SQL Express on said machine, and even to tell
me how to connect to said server remotely (otherwise I could run my copy of
SSMS and connect remotely). So, at least for the moment, I'm pretty much
stuck. It's not like I have a large number of tasks to perform. Just create
a few queries and a couple of Views, which would subsequently serve as the
data source for a couple of Crystal Reports not provided by the vendor's
package.

Any suggestions shall be gratefully received.

Arthur

-- 
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

From accessd at shaw.ca  Wed Aug 23 22:49:34 2017
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:49:34 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1h9VUK9MKRJwxhaSHKc_OKuThqwjiUzgbF5v9YODJMiYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY4PR11MB1733E3ACA9C03DDC0910E36AF5840@CY4PR11MB1733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEPJO1h9VUK9MKRJwxhaSHKc_OKuThqwjiUzgbF5v9YODJMiYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1799485864.397681137.1503546574081.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>

I do not know how good Toad for SQL is but Toad for Oracle was awesome.

Jim 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:15:32 AM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query

Since sending that email, I have found two, both of which I've heard of but
never used: Heidi SQL and Toad for SQL Server. I'll download them now and
kick their wheels.

A.

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Damien Solodow <
Damien.Solodow at harrison.edu> wrote:

> There is a stand-alone SSMS package (which is free):
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/ssms/download-sql-
> server-management-studio-ssms
>
> Only other thing I can think of off-hand would be Visual Studio Code with
> the mssqlserver extension...
>
> DAMIEN SOLODOW
> IT Engineering Lead
> 317.447.6033 (office)
> HARRISON COLLEGE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]
> On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:43 AM
> To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server <dba-sqlserver@
> databaseadvisors.com>
> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
>
> Can you think of a replacement for SSMS, ideally free? I don't need all
> the functionality of SSMS, but I do need to be able to create queries,
> ideally graphically, execute them, and change them into views.
>
> You might wonder why I need this, since I already have the complete SQL
> Express package. It's a long story but I'll cut to the chase. A client has
> licensed a package from a vendor. This package runs on a server in the
> vendor's office, and is connected to over the net. The vendor has denied
> permission for me to install SQL Express on said machine, and even to tell
> me how to connect to said server remotely (otherwise I could run my copy of
> SSMS and connect remotely). So, at least for the moment, I'm pretty much
> stuck. It's not like I have a large number of tasks to perform. Just create
> a few queries and a couple of Views, which would subsequently serve as the
> data source for a couple of Crystal Reports not provided by the vendor's
> package.
>
> Any suggestions shall be gratefully received.
>
> Arthur
>
> --
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>


-- 
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Thu Aug 24 04:35:01 2017
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 05:35:01 -0400
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Replacement for SSMS and/or Query
In-Reply-To: <1799485864.397681137.1503546574081.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
References: <CAEPJO1iVUTsspWeV67tc_ukhkmt040qhL=kYr002q7L53Ju_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY4PR11MB1733E3ACA9C03DDC0910E36AF5840@CY4PR11MB1733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEPJO1h9VUK9MKRJwxhaSHKc_OKuThqwjiUzgbF5v9YODJMiYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1799485864.397681137.1503546574081.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1j1Gu5jEwvdzDOAWBDFDvN=O1SKun5vsvQHoPftg3GdjA@mail.gmail.com>

Toad for SQL Server deserves the "awesome" appellation as well. I am deeply
impressed.

A.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Jim Lawrence <accessd at shaw.ca> wrote:

> I do not know how good Toad for SQL is but Toad for Oracle was awesome.
>
> Jim

From darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au  Thu Aug 24 06:53:59 2017
From: darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au (Darryl Collins)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:53:59 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Google Data Studio
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1gF78T1vz_xeqLJVfcQdR7-vQNXWxW7af=_9GjiWHUfEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1gF78T1vz_xeqLJVfcQdR7-vQNXWxW7af=_9GjiWHUfEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SYXPR01MB10714E633CA314434D9DE1E8FC9A0@SYXPR01MB1071.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>

Interesting.

Early days, but it might be worth watching.

Cheers
Darryl

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Wednesday, 23 August 2017 8:25 AM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Google Data Studio

I just learned of this product and visited their site <https://www.google.com/analytics/data-studio/>. It provides free tools for data analytics, reports and dashboards. Apparently still in beta, it looks really nice.

--
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com