What is the most popular SQL Server?

Hi Brett,
The cost is not a big issue.
We've got a budget for this and my supervisor just wants to go with the trend on what database is most used by companies.  Ease of implementation and administration is a plus.  Thanks

MS SQL 2000 is pretty darn easy to install and administer.  MS SQL scales up pretty good from what I've heard, but ORACLE seems to be the big daddy for scalability.  I still prefer MS SQL

Any opinion on SyBase and MySql?
Thanks all

Sybase is pretty good as well.  Remember, Microsoft and Sybase originally had the joint effort that create SQL Server.....

MySQL isn't as robust (yet) as the "other guys".

But, you get what you pay for usually.

I'm working on a datawarehouse project right now with a 400gig Microsoft SQL Server database.  I love SQL Server, but I'm not too impressed with how SQL Server scales.....

Brett

Choose MS SQL Server because it is the easiest to live with.  I currently administer MS, Oracle, and Sybase databases, but all the internal development is done with MS SQL Server, including heterogeneous queries into the other brands. This is because it is the least trouble to administer and program to using MS tools.

You can't simply say "choose MS SQL Server because it is the easiest to live with".....It all depends on the environment and the requirements--what fits for you may not fit for NeoCB.....

It sounds as if there is neither a DBA on site, nor specific requirements, nor a specific platform, so given that "environment" I believe the answer is Microsoft.  Neither Sybase nor Oracle provide an administration interface that works well in that environment.  SQL Anywhere and Progress might work but would not be the "common" choice he is looking for.

And while SQL Server and Sybase started from the same code base, they are very different animals now.  They do still have a conveniently similar SQL dialect though.

Maybe it's just our site.  But at our location we run Oracle on the production warehouse mgmt system, and SQL for the internal web user interface.

I know you mentioned cost isn't your primary issue, but at least at our facility (to maintain the production system) requires: 1 Oracle DB Admin, 1 UNIX Admin, 2 Oracle PL/SQL developers, 1 Oracle forms developer, 2 Production Sys Analysts, 1-2 Reports writers (depnding on labor crunch we have 1 or sometimes 2).  This is for an application we didn't even write.

However for our website Running on IIS5.0, SQL2000 backend)  We have no addl server support (WIN2000 server support is fine), 2 engineers doing preliminary web development (with opportunity to outsource to a bunch of 16 yr olds), and 1 of them (me) is the SQL Server admin (because it's so easy to do using the provided tools).

I know a lot of major sites use Oracle (probably due to scaling capabilities)  But for us, 1 million transactions per week on the SQL database (that cost $34000 (cluster)+$1500 licensing) was a lot cheaper than the proposed Oracle solution (hp refurb UNIX box (no clustering) $50k+Oracle licensing (100 users) something like $250k.

We track our ongoing project costs, and now (more than ever) the push is to use our web frontend to access the Oracle backend (when needed) but run against SQL whenever possible just simply for cost reasons (licensing+headcount+hardware (unix VS nt)+hardware(storage).  And to-date the SQL solution is about 10% of the Oracle/Unix/Production box.

Let the bashing of the SQL guy by the Oracle fanatics begin!   :)

Arbert is right on the money.  MS SQL server is certainly a good database, and lately getting more and more expensive, so the cost issue vaporizes.  Unless you want to continually monitor locking issues, go with Oracle.  The tools are more useful, I believe, as well in Oracle.  

In any event, whichever you choose, the TCO is in the maintaining of these databases, not the initial purchase of the software.

T