Experience using SQL Server and RoR?

[Dan Buettner]

I'm building an app for a large enterprise, and the corporate IT folks are suggesting using SQL Server (latest version I assume) instead of MySQL, due to their familiarity with it.

I have limited experience with SQL Server, and even more limited with SQL Server and RoR.  One internal app that had somewhat frequent problems.  I've got years of experience with MySQL, and have seen great results using MySQL and RoR.

I'm not opposed to examining our options, but the problems I've had in the past give me pause.  And I do like MySQL!

Are there people out their who would share their RoR/SQL Server experiences, good or bad?

Thanks much,
Dan Buettner
drbue...@gmail.com

[Ball, Donald A Jr (Library)]

I use it. I don't particularly like it, but I've never worked with a
database server for which I had any particular fondness with the
possible exception of PostgreSQL. That said, SQL Server with the ODBC
adapter seems about as stable as anything else. The biggest drawbacks
I've found are that BLOBs are not supported, and likely won't be unless
and until ActiveRecord is rewritten, and that SQL Server is treated as
something of an afterthought in the rails community; a (very) few
plugins only support MySQL and PostgreSQL.

- donald

[Mike Woodhouse]

On Nov 15, 2:53 pm, "Dan Buettner" <drbuett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm building an app for a large enterprise, and the corporate IT folks are
> suggesting using SQL Server (latest version I assume) instead of MySQL, due
> to their familiarity with it.
>

> Are there people out their who would share their RoR/SQL Server experiences,
> good or bad?

Limited experience (one small in-house app) and I can't speak for
performance compared to other platforms, but I can vouch for there
being no obvious showstopping problems, which says as much for
ActiveRecord's database-agnostic qualities as anything.

I guess what I'm trying to say, in a nutshell, is that it just
worked. Data got stored and retrieved, which is what should happen.

HTH,

Mike

[Trent Black]

SQL Server cost a lot more.
The speed is nice, and is stable.
Drivers seem to work well.
It is very easy to set up.
BACKUPS are a breeze.
We could not get BLOB's working.

IF, your database geeks can figure out how to work with
another free database, they will save a lot of
money, even on a windows(c) machine. here are some things
we had to do.

buy a backup solution, and you can use a windows(c) machine as a
server, use a free database, which are very stable and secure,
and you are rock and rolling if you can stay away from stored
procedures and triggers (and DBA's). staying away from code in the
database
makes life so much easier, when it comes to maintenance, also.

my cheap 2 cents worth.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[yachtman]

Using MySQL now and have used SQL Server a ton historically.

Save yourself a lot of energy by trying to convert the corporate
lackeys to MySQL. Probably already using a ton of SQL Server and they
aren't going to change overnight.

ROR works fine with SQL Server and will not take you much to master.
You don't need to know the details of SQL Server, particularly since
most everything that MySQL does, SQL Server does too, and more.
Basically, working from a base of MySQL is easier than understanding
full breadth of SQL Server.

And for a 1,000 good reasons, I recommend using MySQL! Even though
they seem to be getting more interested in making money (it has only
gotten harder to find the free downloads sections), the product is
free and is getting better all of the time.

> drbuett...@gmail.com