Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
magray2
Starting Member
4 Posts |
 Posted - 2007-03-16 : 12:03:35
|
| I have to build a coherent argument for why we should fix the application to run at compt level 90 instead of just leaving it at 80.Looking at . . . Differences Between Lower Compatibility Levels and Level 90[url]http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178653.aspx[/url]. . . I can't find anything further that tells my why it is in our best interest to do so other than 'Microsoft won't help you until you do'.Anyone have any good bullet points on this? |
|
|
snSQL
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
1837 Posts |
Posted - 2007-03-16 : 13:15:19
|
I think you'll find a thing or two here  http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/overview/whats-new-in-sqlserver2005.mspx |
 |
|
|
magray2
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 2007-03-16 : 13:46:29
|
| The server is 2005, but the database running the app is at level 80. The question I have is what benefit is there to fixing the stored procs to play nice at level 90. Why put out the money to fix the compatability?Why not just leave the specific database at 80 running on 2005? What specific benefits do I miss out on? II guess I don't understand what specific functionality is restricted by leaving this one particular database (of about 20) running at 80. |
|
|
|
MohammedU
Posting Yak Master
145 Posts |
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2007-03-17 : 02:41:52
|
| the bottom line is that new sql 2005 features may not work with compatibility level set to 80. As for the specifics, you may have to test them out feature-by-feature to determine what does and what doesn't work.Why bother upgrading to SQL 2005 if you aren't going to use any of the new features? -ec |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2007-03-17 : 08:16:08
|
| I read somewhere that the performance in "backward compatibility mode" suffers compared to "native mode".In our case we have run a full set of QA tests (i.e. with compatibility set to 90), and found very little that we needed to change - the couple of things we found were bugs in the original code which had not been "expressed"in SQL 2000, so no "real" compatibility issues (so far!). We did find some stuff in our database maintenance routines that was low level, accessed the system tables, and needed changing.The T-SQL enhancements are here:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189465.aspxKristen |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2007-03-17 : 08:18:12
|
| See also:http://www.sqlteam.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=80138 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Argument to support database upgrade from 80 to 90