Difference between SQL Server 2005 and 2008 [Resolved]

Posted by Skraghava under Sql Server on 3/16/2010 | Views : 83250 | Status : [Member] | Replies : 3

Write New Post |

Search Forums | Answered

Resolved Posts |

Un Answered Posts |

Forums Home

Hi All,

What is the major difference between SQL Server 2005 and 2008, is there any good advantages of performance in 2008.

I'm planning to develop an application, please let me know if i can go for 2005 or 2008. Becuase if i take server space also, it is easy to get sql server 2005 rather 2008..

Please any one can explain me in detail ?

Regards,
Raghavendra SK

Thanks and regards,
Raghavendra SK

[Resolved]

Reply | Reply with Attachment

Alert Moderator

Responses

Posted by: Raja on: 3/16/2010 [Member] Starter

0	Dear Skraghava, There are couple of discussion going on on this topic, have a look at it. http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic459626-146-1.aspx http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/transactsql/thread/62e55372-7ae4-45ec-846c-c23c63058f16 Thank you. Regards, Raja, USA Skraghava, if this helps please login to Mark As Answer. \| Alert Moderator

Posted by: Syedshakeer on: 3/16/2010 [Member] Starter

0	Hi, check the follwoing Link http://blogs.msdn.com/euanga/archive/2007/11/07/compression-whats-the-difference-between-sql2005-and-sql2008.aspx Syed Shakeer Hussain Skraghava, if this helps please login to Mark As Answer. \| Alert Moderator

Posted by: Sagarp on: 3/17/2010 [Member] Bronze

0	We in the process if migrating our SQL Server 2005 database Active/Active cluster to 2008. We have setup and configured SQL Server 2008 cluster and I started testing/comparing performance between old and new clusters. Database in question has been copied over to 2008, upgraded, statistic updated and compatibility level changed to 100. I noticed that very same stored procedure generated different plans in 2005 and 2008. It ran slower on 2008. Did anyone has similar experience when stored procedure ran slower after upgrade to 2008? I have also noticed that very same query that generates identical plan ran slower on 2008: select * from <tablename> --tested tables with 300K and 500K rows SQL Server 2008 cluster has LUN shared by Data, Log, TempDB drives (not exactly the best practice; has been done to cut costs). Also, SQL Server 2008 -64 bit (SP1 CU2) has 32GB of RAM and 8 CPU ,whereas SQL Server 2005 -64-bit (SP2) has 16 CPU with 64GB. Parallel execution is disabled on both servers. 2008 server has 'lock pages in memory' configured I compared performance of repetitive calls when data pages are in cache and confirmed that number of physical reads and read ahead reads were 0 indicating that data pages were read from memory. Number of logical reads was pretty much identical but overall duration on 2008 was somewhere between 25%-40% slower. Thanks SagarP http://www.emanonsolutions.net http://emanonsolutions.blogspot.com/ Skraghava, if this helps please login to Mark As Answer. \| Alert Moderator

We in the process if migrating our SQL Server 2005 database Active/Active
cluster to 2008. We have setup and configured SQL Server 2008 cluster and I
started testing/comparing performance between old and new clusters.
Database in question has been copied over to 2008, upgraded, statistic
updated and compatibility level changed to 100. I noticed that very same
stored procedure generated different plans in 2005 and 2008. It ran slower on
2008. Did anyone has similar experience when stored procedure ran slower
after upgrade to 2008?
I have also noticed that very same query that generates identical plan ran
slower on 2008:

select * from <tablename> --tested tables with 300K and 500K rows

SQL Server 2008 cluster has LUN shared by Data, Log, TempDB drives (not
exactly the best practice; has been done to cut costs). Also, SQL Server 2008
-64 bit (SP1 CU2) has 32GB of RAM and 8 CPU ,whereas SQL Server 2005 -64-bit
(SP2) has 16 CPU with 64GB. Parallel execution is disabled on both servers.
2008 server has 'lock pages in memory' configured

I compared performance of repetitive calls when data pages are in cache
and confirmed that number of physical reads and read ahead reads were 0
indicating that data pages were read from memory.
Number of logical reads was pretty much identical but overall duration on
2008 was somewhere between 25%-40% slower.

Thanks
SagarP
http://www.emanonsolutions.net
http://emanonsolutions.blogspot.com/

Skraghava, if this helps please login to Mark As Answer. | Alert Moderator

Latest Posts