SQL 2014 introduces In-Memory OLTP to the product (although I prefer the name Hekaton). It is a significant leap forward so far as the technology goes, and can lead to significant performance improvements when utilized, but is it going to be a technology for the masses? Maybe eventually, but right now I see limited use cases for it.
Limitations on compiled tables
First up there are limitations around what you can do with the In-Memory tables. There’s no option to perform a truncate or merge into one. You also cannot perform a cross-database join with one, or access it from a CLR module using context connections (see Accessing Memory-Optimized Tables Using Interpreted Transact-SQL).
Interested in using contained databases for portability? Forget using an In-Memory table then, just not going to happen. You can’t put one on a particular filegroup or partition either, or use computed columns. Like to use IDENTITY? Not any more. DRI? Nope, not supported, nor are clustered primary keys.
That being said you can do pretty much anything else with these tables, just so long as you don’t want to use a LOB data type, datetimeoffset, or potentially have a row overflow (see Supported Data Types). Then again, were that the case you shouldn’t be doing those kinds of things in your OLTP system. We’ve never seen anyone do that, right?
You could also have problems with transactions in these tables, and so you have to be very careful with setting retry logic.
You might want to be careful when creating your tables too, because once they are there you can’t alter them, you actually have to drop and recreate it.
Limitations on indexes
Unique indexes are a no go, so are filtered ones. Want to drop or alter an index? Well that’s a table drop and recreate right there. Those null columns you have? Well you can’t have those in an index. Maybe it’s time to start listening to Joe Celko and getting rid of those pesky nullable columns.
Limitations on compiled procedures
On the bright side your developers will no longer be able to use cursors, so it’s not all doom and gloom. Set based items are a little more challenging though, you cannot do a multi-row insert using INSERT…VALUES, but that’s pretty minor, and just requires more typing.
You won’t be getting too recursive, CTEs aren’t supported, nor are subqueries.
DELETE and UPDATE from aren’t allowed, nor are CASE statements. Forget about using UDFs, or the OUTPUT clause to get information back.
Want to get data from more than one table? UNION won’t get you there, nor will INTERSECT or EXCEPT. OUTER JOINS and APPLY aren’t supported either.
Filtering your results? Don’t expect to use ( OR IN (..)) as a construct or NOT, and you better be sure what you are looking for because LIKE isn’t allowed either.
By no means is this a complete list, there are lots more limitations.
So many limitations, such little time
In-Memory is fast, that’s been demonstrated, but there are so many restrictions around it’s usage that for most companies it is not going to be something that is even worth looking at. The use cases for it are probably too extreme. Yes, it will get used, and used to great effect by some, but I think that we are looking at less than 1% of the install base could actually see true use cases and be able to adjust their development methods and code base to be able to support it (at least in this version).
So while this is an exciting breakthrough in performance you’ll have to excuse me while I keep working on tuning my code and indexes for performance, and setting up my AGs for DR.