Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Microsoft SQL Server Overtaking Oracle as Primary Database Among Surveyed Technology Professionals
PR Newswire ^ | 09/28/2010

Posted on 09/28/2010 5:04:24 PM PDT by WebFocus

InformationWeek Analytics, the leading service for peer-based IT research and analysis, today announced the release of its "Research: 2010 State of Database Technology" report. More than 750 business technology professionals weigh in on their database strategies. Report author Richard Winter is founder and president of WinterCorp, an independent consulting firm that specializes in the performance and scalability of data management systems.

Research Summary:

Our first InformationWeek Analytics State of Database Technology Survey reveals serious fault lines beneath the critically important enterprise database and data warehousing markets. The 755 business technology professionals taking part in our poll express discontent with rising license and upgrade fees as database sizes and workloads spiral ever larger. On the vendor side, a spate of acquisitions and the rise of appliances are creating uncertainty as well.

Findings:

* Most respondents, 88%, hail from enterprises where the primary operational database platform is from Microsoft (35%), Oracle (35%) or IBM (18%). While the majority are generally satisfied with features and performance, more than half, 52%, take issue with license fees; 13% of respondents characterize their costs as "highway robbery."

* A remarkably high percentage of respondents, 27%, are using as a secondary operational database the open source MySQL, which is now owned by Oracle and, more importantly, carries no license fee. In addition, 39% are interested in NoSQL, a term encompassing a group of large, clustered but nonrelational data management systems, often inexpensive or open source. Together these trends suggest we'll see movement toward alternatives to the commercially available relational database platforms that have been the near-universal standard for the past 25 years.

* The data warehousing market is also in flux. The good news is that 41% of respondents have a single enterprise data warehouse (EDW) or are working toward that goal—the largest percentage pursuing any single strategy in our survey. However, just over 60% are satisfied with the performance and features of their EDW platforms, while a quarter are unhappy with license fees.

* MySQL is frequently cited as a secondary data warehouse or data mart, and in the analytic databases category, which 48% see as distinct from data warehouses and data marts, a remarkable 22% of respondents are using, experimenting with or investigating the open source platform Hadoop; slightly fewer are looking at related tools, such as BigTable or MapReduce.

"One subject we really dug into for this report is database security, an area often underemphasized," says Lorna Garey, content director of InformationWeek Analytics. "We're worried that respondents are talking a good game here while not always following through. I say this because while 70% say their organizations perform database security assessments to identify weaknesses, only about half of those people were able to name the security assessment products in use. Maybe they're assuming that the CISO is handling this, but the phrase 'trust but verify' comes to mind for me."

InformationWeek Analytics is a subscription-based service, offering peer-based technology research. Its site currently houses more than 900 reports and briefs, and includes a dedicated area where technology professionals can access complete issues of InformationWeek Magazine.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: databases; microsoft; oracle; sqlserver

1 posted on 09/28/2010 5:04:29 PM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

Forgot to copy the first sentence in the article :

“Microsoft is also poised to take the lead in enterprise data mart usage within 18 months”


2 posted on 09/28/2010 5:06:27 PM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus
open source MySQL, which is now owned by Oracle

Someone seems to be unclear on the concept of 'open source'. MySQL is not owned by Oracle (or anybody), although they may be taking the lead on development.

/johnny

3 posted on 09/28/2010 5:10:34 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

We use Oracle and Mysql at work. We are getting rid of Microsoft SQL.


4 posted on 09/28/2010 5:11:23 PM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

So, what is MYSQL going to be, is it still ‘open source’ or not?

Or is Oracle going to restrict sharing of the Source Code from now on?


5 posted on 09/28/2010 5:12:38 PM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

RE: We use Oracle and Mysql at work. We are getting rid of Microsoft SQL.


Funny, we are doing just the opposite.

We are a heavy Windows shop however. Is your company a Windows based company, or are you guys using a different operating system?


6 posted on 09/28/2010 5:14:39 PM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus
Which fork? MySQL was started years ago and was originally a sorta piece of crap until some major changes (I still have archive copies of the non-thread version). Sun got involved much later. Oracle bought Sun.

Realistically, there will always be an open source fork of MySQL out there available for download for free, that geeks can modify and repost. Some geeks will do RCS stuff to make sure there is a clear path, bug reports, bug fixes, etc....

This story is basic marketing hype.

/johnny

7 posted on 09/28/2010 5:19:58 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

however,

the windows 7 tablet/slate seems to be DOA

the windows phone 7 is going only GSM with no CDMA for sprint or verizon

isn’t this how IBM faded away?


8 posted on 09/28/2010 5:33:40 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus
I've worked with MSSQL, Oracle, Informix and others such as IBM's DB2 over the years.

I think MSSQL is very reliable, performs well and has some great development tools... it's my first choice these days for high-performanace database work.
9 posted on 09/28/2010 5:35:21 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

“I think MSSQL is very reliable, performs well and has some great development tools... it’s my first choice these days for high-performanace database work.”

Yeah, I work with it everyday, in a totally MS shop, and I find data integrity - row locking type issues every day. Oracle was solid when I worked with it before this company. And the application development platform was better. Of course, every Mohatmas in India thinks he knows how to code C# now. Not the case btw.


10 posted on 09/28/2010 5:47:48 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

Ping


11 posted on 09/28/2010 5:49:37 PM PDT by 4Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
I used SQL server 2005 for quite some time in the Federal Government. I really liked it, it was robust, secure, and relatively easy to develop on. Combined with VS, it was a piece of cake.

I never got any certs in SQL server, I might just go for my SQL 2008 cert, see if it opens any new career opportunities for me.

12 posted on 09/28/2010 5:52:39 PM PDT by Paradox (Hey Obama - The Time For Honoring Yourself is at an End...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

We are Windows 2008 and Solaris 10.


13 posted on 09/28/2010 6:02:25 PM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

I’ve been an Oracle DBA for 10 years, used 8i, 9i, 10G and now 11G. In my current shop we also use MSSQL Server 2000 and 2005. Hands down, Oracle is the best enterprise database solution. In my opinion, anyway.


14 posted on 09/28/2010 7:19:27 PM PDT by FroedrickVonFreepenstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

If Microsoft were really smart they would give away Microsoft Access for free. It would spur sales in SQL Server tremendously.


15 posted on 09/28/2010 7:25:03 PM PDT by killermosquito (Buffalo (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: killermosquito
If Microsoft were really smart they would give away Microsoft Access for free. It would spur sales in SQL Server tremendously.

I am interested in learning why you think this strategy would help Microsoft's bottom line...
16 posted on 09/29/2010 6:41:06 AM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

RE: We are Windows 2008 and Solaris 10.


I can understand your using MYSQL and Oracle for Solaris 10, but now you’re telling me that MYSQL and Oracle perform better on a Windows platform compared to SQL Server, and that’s why you’re getting rid of the latter?


17 posted on 09/29/2010 6:43:22 AM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus; rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; JosephW; ...

18 posted on 09/29/2010 6:44:49 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

Access is a great product that many are not using and don’t have it installed because they don’t want to spend the difference between Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office Professional (which includes Access).

If it were free many of those people would start developing databases in Access and then “get in over their heads” and would need to hire a software developer (like you and me - I looked at your profile)and we would create a more powerful database for them and eventually migrate them to SQL Server.

This would also create more work for us software developers and it would increase dependence on Microsoft (which I view as a good thing since I make my living with Microsoft).


19 posted on 09/29/2010 7:47:07 AM PDT by killermosquito (Buffalo (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: killermosquito

For my relational db stuff, I use Access for prototyping and proof-of-concept, then Oracle for production. I like the simplicity of Access...but haven’t used it for a couple years now (more maintenance than new dev).


20 posted on 09/29/2010 8:53:45 AM PDT by LearnsFromMistakes (Yes, I am happy to see you. But that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

Oracle is only run on the Solaris servers. MYSQL on both.


21 posted on 09/29/2010 9:35:10 AM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

So, how do you compare MYSQL running on Windows compared to SQL Server? ( What versions of MYSQL and SQL Server are you guys using anyway?)

I believe the article is showing an increased market share for SQL Server because it has been designed and dedicated to the Windows platform.

Like it or not, Windows has over 90% of the OS market worldwide and Microsoft’s dominance in this area will simply ensure that any product they develop, be it Database Servers or Web servers or browsers will be OPTIMIZED for the Windows platform ( whatever version they’re coming up with ).


22 posted on 09/29/2010 10:02:30 AM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

SQL2005 still annoyed me, especially the full-text indexing as a separate process, very kludgy. SQL2008 is pretty sweet though, I love working with it.


23 posted on 09/29/2010 10:56:05 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

We are running MYSQL 5.5 using myphpadmin to build database on UNIX and MySQL admin to build databases on Windows.


24 posted on 09/29/2010 12:39:37 PM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

We use these two databases to keep it simple and consistent. The web engineers know there databases well. We have over 100 web sites to keep running.


25 posted on 09/29/2010 12:42:04 PM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

I generally use one these days, MSSQL. I’ve found over the years that what’s far more important for performance than the database engine or even the hardware you use is the design of the database and how it’s used by the application. I’ve achieved literally 100x+ performance improvements combined with 90% drops in server load by changing even small parts in the structure and access of databases created by others. They thought SQL Server or the hardware was just slow, but it was the design that was at fault. Why throw $50,000 more at hardware and SQL licenses when a few days of intelligent analysis and redesign will fix it?


26 posted on 09/29/2010 1:12:41 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
(Sound of grey_whiskers purring.)

Once upon a time I acheived a factor of 30 speedup in a kernel for a computational routine at work by re-arranging and re-writing it to eliminate algebraic redundancies.

Cheers!

27 posted on 09/29/2010 10:02:53 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
(Sound of grey_whiskers purring.)

Once upon a time I achieved a factor of 30 speedup in a kernel for a computational routine at work by re-arranging and re-writing it to eliminate algebraic redundancies.

Cheers!

28 posted on 09/29/2010 10:03:05 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus
I am interested in learning why you think this strategy would help Microsoft's bottom line...

It would spur otherwise unnecessary purchases of Windows licenses.

29 posted on 09/29/2010 10:11:39 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus
SQL Server is a highly competent database.

But these days, I find no reason to go beyond SQLite, in those cases where I even need a RDBMS. There is no reason to pay for the licenses you need to run MSSQL, much less Oracle. Google doesn't do it, so why should I?

30 posted on 09/29/2010 10:16:56 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
There is no reason to pay for the licenses you need to run MSSQL, much less Oracle.

There is if you have data requirements too big for SQLite. It is "lite" after all. It can't really handle highly transactional or large datasets.

Google doesn't do it, so why should I?

Oracle uses a custom, distributed, non-relational database system called BigTable that has a multi-tiered lookup architecture and is designed to work on top of Google's custom file system. It's designed for fast lookup within petabytes of data across thousands of servers. It's also not for sale.

31 posted on 09/30/2010 8:13:44 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Why did I write Oracle? BigTable is of course Google.


32 posted on 09/30/2010 8:15:02 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
BigTable isn't a relational database. When Google actually needs an RDBMS, they use MySQL. Which is what I would use if I needed an RDBMS beefier than SQLite.
33 posted on 09/30/2010 3:00:18 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
BigTable isn't a relational database. When Google actually needs an RDBMS, they use MySQL.

I know BigTable isn't relational. As for MySQL, it has definitely come a long way. It couldn't even do transactions, stored procedures or referential integrity when I started using it. There are still limitations to MySQL. For example, for work use I don't want an RDBMS where pulling the plug on the server can cause data corruption. MSSQL and Oracle can recover from such a situation just fine, MySQL not so much.

But as always, horses for courses.

34 posted on 10/01/2010 7:51:31 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson