Microsoft SQL Server 2014 reaches RTM, will be released April 1st

Microsoft has a lot on its plate in terms of upcoming software releases. In addition to the rumors that it plans to launch Windows 8.1 Update 1 on April 8th, the company has announced this week that SQL Server 2014 has reached the RTM stage and will become generally available on April 1st.

In a blog post, Quentin Clark, Microsoft's Corporate Vice President of its Data Platform Group, said that the release of SQL Server 2014 is significant in at least a couple of ways for its data management product family. One is that it supports in-memory online transaction processing, which Clark claims can boost database performance by up to 30 times compared to older versions. These improvements were created under the code name "Project Hekaton". He said:

For a company like bwin, the largest regulated online gaming company, faster processing means not only can they serve more customers by scaling their applications to 250,000 requests a second, but it means the experience their customers have with their application is better, faster and smoother. It is exciting to see what customers can do when raw performance and throughput of a database changes this dramatically.

The other major addition to SQL Server 2014, according to Clark, is the ability for users to quickly back up and recover their databases in the cloud via Microsoft's Windows Azure. It also supports backups to a Windows Azure virtual machine image.

More information about SQL Server 2014 will be revealed on April 15th in an online event which will be attended by new Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella in addition to Clark and Microsoft COO Kevin Turner.

Source: Microsoft | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

NeoBytes :) Man sends 17,424 texts to seller who scammed him out of PlayStation 3

Next Story

Windows XP: What will likely happen on April 9th

14 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I hope they upgraded the error messages. "String or binary data might be truncated." Is an awful message that doesn't explain the table, field, length of data allowed, or the length of the data trying to be set.

LogicalApex said,
I haven't read it all, but I don't see what the big deal is...

some [snip] thought that incrementing your table identity numbers by 1000 should be a good idea. That messed up the numeration and order of my records and cost me considerable time to fix it.

WinRT said,

some [snip] thought that incrementing your table identity numbers by 1000 should be a good idea. That messed up the numeration and order of my records and cost me considerable time to fix it.

Why did this cause a problem? It seems like there is a problem in your application design if you've tightly coupled it to the auto-incremented identity in such a way that this would be a problem.

I fail to see how this is an issue in any properly designed application... Unless there are some kind of storage or performance impact inside SQL server itself.

LogicalApex said,

Why did this cause a problem? It seems like there is a problem in your application design if you've tightly coupled it to the auto-incremented identity in such a way that this would be a problem.

I fail to see how this is an issue in any properly designed application... Unless there are some kind of storage or performance impact inside SQL server itself.

Not all aplications are designed the same way as you do. Right now this is the most voted bug in sql server, and it is marked as a BUG... may be you should propose your design solution? since 170+ sql server experts are wrong. (when I say sql experts I mean zealot DBAs with no life lol)

I wish they would go back to the old pricing model... this new per core server with a min of 4 cores is killing us... we just got quoted over $100k for a new SQL server with server 2012 enterprise and that was just for one of our servers... we have linked servers and high availability needs to require enterprise...

even standard edition would run us over $36k

we use to pay under half that for server licenses! (if per went per user CAL licenses would cost us even more)

LogicalApex said,
Looks like MS wants to get into Oracle pricing now that they allow it on Azure...

yeah, and that was why we went with MS SQL Server, Oracle was a lot of money.. well that was one of the big factors, MS Dev tools was another

My production servers run on SQL 2008. I guess I can look at this version to upgrade them. Personally, I don't see any big improvements for small companies like me with less than 500 users hitting the database for 10 hours a day and a database size of less than 25GB