>>Yes, but also another example of Microsoft shifting towards more industry standards.
>>
>>>Another nail in the coffin.
>>>
>
>Ok, thanks. Regardless of the fact that OLE DB is being deprecated, we need a fairly robust SQL Server to handle a lot of requests (not HealthCare.gov quantity, but within our company with hundreds of users). We plan only to use FoxPro data via a linked server only in the interim while we port the entire thing completely to SQL Server.
>
>How much of a performance difference will we have in the end after the port is complete if we are stuck on a 32 SQL Server vs. 64 bit?

Hi, Jeff,

One question - what's the OS on the Server .....Windows Server 32 bit or 64 bit?

Whether you want to use 32 bit or 64 bit for SQL Server really depends on the amount of memory dedicated to the database server/service itself. If it will be less than 4 GB, then 64 bit doesn't buy you much. But if the DB server will have more than 4 GB (and you'll likely want more!) then you'll want the 64-bit version. Reason being, 32-bit can't address beyond a certain amount of memory.

One thing....if you have a 64-bit version of Windows Server running, then it won't make much sense to run 32-bit SQL Server.

Additionally, if you ever get into data warehousing and use the columnstore index in SQL Server, Microsoft baked some huge, and I mean HUGE performance optimizations into the database engine in SQL 2012 and 2014 for certain data warehousing/data mart scenarios. You'll get far more out of those benefits in a good 64-bt environment. Think big. :)


As for OLE DB, as others stated, Microsoft is dropping support for it, in favor of ODBC. That doesn't mean OLE DB will "break" in the next release - but they're dropping support for it.