x

What is the smallest and simplest implementation of sql?

Please excuse the generality (and probably stupidity) of our questions, but we really need some help just grasping what will be involved in implementing sql for our business.

We are a small, non-profit seed company in N Calif (boutifulgardens.org, part of a genuine save-the-world non-profit growbiointensive.org). Our enterprise provider, Dydacomp, has mandated that we migrate from Fox Pro to SQL server for stability reasons, but they will not implement sql server for us

We have no experience with sql and do not regularly work with databases. To say that we are freaked out by this necessity is putting things mildly.

We are interested in the smallest and simplest implementation of sql that works for us. We are most concerned with maintenance and stability since we are 100 miles from anywhere - once implemented properly, how much involvement does sql involve? We can get SQL2012 through Tech Soup, but are hoping that something smaller and easier like SQL express might be enough to do the job.

I cannot tell you how grateful we would be to get some feedback on these questions!

Bill Bruneau, Bountiful Gardens, 707 459 6410

more ▼

asked Aug 19, 2013 at 12:28 PM in Default

avatar image

bbruneau
20 1 1 3

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

1 answer: sort voted first

You're in a tough spot. SQL Server is not simple to implement or easy to maintain (despite being one of the easiest enterprise level systems out there). I'm not going to be able to give you a perfect answer that will, without a doubt, solve your problems. I would suggest one of two approaches.

Option 1) SQL Express is much simpler to install and has a lot less maintenance overhead than Standard SQL Server. But, it has limitations in the size of database, number of connections, amount of memory available, and doesn't eliminate all the work you'll need to do (such as statistics maintenance). But, it does make things quite a lot easier. However, it's not really a server level product, so I'm unsure of how that will work with your provider. You should ask them.

Option 2) Take a look at Windows Azure SQL Database (WASD). From the sounds of it, you only need a small set of database behaviors, and WASD covers everything that the majority of people need in a database. Further, with WASD, you only pay for what you use, don't pay any licensing fees, and don't have to worry about maintaining servers or anything else. You basically have to take care of your database (again, updating statistics for example). Further, since it's based in the cloud, your service provider doesn't have to worry about it. Not only that, it has built-in high availability. Limitations include the fact that you can, today, only have 150gb database and only use SQL logins. But, for your situation, I think this is a very good, viable solution.

Since it sounds like you guys are primarily developers, one thing, very important, that you need to keep in mind, regardless of data platform, be sure you design your system around avoidance of SQL Injection, regardless of which of the platforms you ultimately go with.

more ▼

answered Aug 19, 2013 at 02:42 PM

avatar image

Grant Fritchey ♦♦
137k 20 43 81

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
Your answer
toggle preview:

Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 524.3 kB each and 1.0 MB total.

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

SQL Server Central

Need long-form SQL discussion? SQLserverCentral.com is the place.

Topics:

x351
x9
x2
x1
x0

asked: Aug 19, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Seen: 611 times

Last Updated: Aug 19, 2013 at 02:42 PM

Copyright 2016 Redgate Software. Privacy Policy