Microsoft .NET Core 1.1 Brings Support For More Linux Distributions, Greater Performance

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Microsoft .NET Core 1.1 Brings Support For More Linux Distributions, Greater Performance

Alongside the announcement of Microsoft joining the Linux Foundation, at Connect 2016 today they announced the public preview of SQL Server for Linux, which they originally announced earlier this year, and they also rolled out .NET Core 1.1...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsoft-dotNET-Core-1.1

[jrch2k8]

its cute i guess

[cj.wijtmans]

SQL Server? we need office and studio not some crappy sql server.

[pipe13]

SQL Server? we need office and studio not some crappy sql server.

That might depend on whether we have a large SQL Server DB we'd really like to host on Linux, might it not?

[cj.wijtmans]

Whats wrong with mariadb?

[pipe13]

Whats wrong with mariadb?

It's not MS SQL Server. Neither is PostgreSQL. Porting a DB from one SQL to the next might not be as easy as it looks. Then there are the client apps that access the server.

Basically, business databases are usually Big Bu$$iness. You don't want to fix what ain't broke.

[flubba86]

In regard to the Profile Guided Optimization:

We adopted a performance optimization for the CoreCLR runtime called Profile-Guided Optimization (PGO), for the .NET Core 1.1 Windows version. We’ve use this technique for the .NET Framework for many years, but had not yet used it for .NET Core. This improvement was not included in the earlier .NET Core 1.1 Preview 1 release.

- It is available on the windows build only.

[boxie]

Whats wrong with mariadb?

MySQL/MariaDB are good for websites, but it isn't that much more than a speedy text file with some flashy dev tooling MSSQL (as with postgres) can be used for a lot more

[AHSauge]

Whats wrong with mariadb?

It's based on MySQL which at best has a crapy history. Last time I worked with it, ACID compliance was doggy at best which should come to no surprise as it's written by people who for a while outright called foreign keys stupid. It almost literally stated so in the documentation up until MySQL 3.23/4.1.
Then there are a several issues with non-supported basic features one would expect, faulty/non-compliant implementation or things that are quite a bit outdated. Last time I used it, MySQL only supported a very old version of Unicode for instance. UTF-8 were limited to 3 bytes instead of the usual 4 bytes for instance. Mind you, using Unicode in itself was hell enough.
Essentially MySQL used to be a toy database, and the current MySQL codebase and MariaDB is built on top of that. That's what's wrong with MariaDB

[AHSauge]

UTF-8 needs 5 bytes to encode a 31 bit Unicode codepoint.

Not sure what you're talking about there. The largest valid Unicode codepoint I know of is 0x10FFFF which is 21 bit. If you were to extend it to 31 bit, UTF-8 would need 6 bytes, not 5, to encode it.