SQL Server Reviews

In the current organisation there was no centralised data repository. Thus, statistics, reporting, and generic management information were not existent. With the introduction of SQL Server, we have consolidated relevant business data into one main repository. We built reporting structures and analytics on top of the repository to help analysts and teams manage themselves, as well as provide management information. From basic or incomplete reports and statistics, we moved to a full reporting data structure, providing a holistic view of the organisation's data.

Without any doubt the Integration Services and Analysis Services are the most widely used. These are the basis for data quality, data gathering, ETL process, as well as collation for the data warehouse, Cube-generation, and ad-hoc processes. The ease in which you may mold a process flow or even modularly add in new structures is something which is much needed in my job.

An area that definitely needs improvement is the Reporting Service side with the actual report server. Although to be fair, Microsoft has developed a new branch of tools for reporting; presumably that is why they have not improved the Reporting Service side. Nevertheless, if this was not the case then, yes, it would be an area for improvement. Another area would be the SQL Server process monitoring, which is quite basic and could sustain more information.

Overall, SQL Server 2014 is a very stable product and so far I cannot remember major issues that I have encountered. The only item which I can list is application failure during Integration Services debugging, when restarting a process flow. In a number of instances the solutions fails. I have not given this much thought and simply stop and start the debugging service rather than restarting.

So far, we have had no scalability issues. I have read about instances where people encounter issues online, but fortunately enough I have never encountered issues.

Yes, in the past I have worked with different versions of SQL server and have switched due to upgrades to utilise the latest version. I have also used Oracle, Tableau, SAP, and Jaspersoft.

The main reason I went for SQL Server is because it felt easier and more adaptive. Also, most of the products we use within the organisation are Microsoft-based, so that provided an extra advantage over the rest.

Not too complex. We had spent a number of months on the design and planning stages, deciding how we would go about the setup, security, and accessibility aspects, so that when it came time for the actual setup, the process looked pretty straightforward. Don't get me wrong, it still took a number of days to finalise, but we had a concrete plan of action, the steps needed, and the work was delegated accordingly.

My advice is quite straightforward. If you know the number of users who really and truly need access to the Server then it is a no-brainer. If you do not know, then get the basic package and minimum licenses and start from there. Needless to say, users can develop/use data structures outside and then deploy onto the Server.

Within the current organisation, we did not look at other options. I was pretty confident that the product would do the job, based on my previous experience with similar products. One key factor which pushed us to choose SQL Server was the cost of the product versus the amount of work to develop/maintain.

I rate it eight out of 10. It is quite a good product and has improved dramatically. Like all products, it has bugs here and there and some areas still need improvement.

I have been using the solution for the past two and half years, however, I have worked with older versions of SQL Server (2012, 2008, 2005). The solution is quite powerful and versatile and I have not yet used all the areas/modules of the solution. It is not always easy to utilise all the available modules for the solution, especially if your work is focused solely on a particular area. Nonetheless, I try to use different areas for side projects.

Plan thoroughly before, and once implemented go through the structure regularly and remodel accordingly. When planning, go through all the various sections, resources, accessibility, security etc.

Performance-wise, SQL cannot handle large amounts of data. In the next release, I would like them to commission SQL Server on Linux, as has been announced in the past but has not yet happened.

I've been using SQL Server for thirteen to fourteen years.

SQL is a highly unstable server - there are patch updates on the Windows server every week, which is why we only use it for non-critical systems. 

The initial setup was very easy - much, much easier than Oracle - and took about a day to complete. Microsoft is less demanding because everything is GUI, unlike Oracle, where you need to use command lines.

This is a very cheap product.

SQL's performance is good enough if you have a low amount of data. For those looking into implementing SQL Server, I would advise first analyzing your requirements and whether your system is critical or non-critical. If it is non-critical, go for SQL as it will save you in terms of cost, but if it is critical, avoid SQL as it will bring you down in one day. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

This is the main database for our financial system. I'm the IT manager and we are customers of SQL server. 

We've been using this solution for many years.

We're satisfied with the stability.

We have around 100 users. The database isn't used directly, so users are not even aware that there is a SQL Server underneath. 

There are some local companies that have direct relations with Microsoft. We use them regularly when we need some support.

I don't recall, it's been many years since we implemented this product. 

We pay a license fee, it could always be cheaper.

I recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

We use the solution on FastAutomate, our core product, to store the aggregated data from different nodes. It resides on the server that's handling the agents. We also use it for different organizations for development. Therefore, we use it for development mainly.

Overall, we've been satisfied with the capabilities of the product.

The solution is stable. It works without issue - to the point you rarely need any technical support at all.

The scalability is very good.

It's got an easy initial setup.

The remote access aspect needs to be improved in terms of security. Right now, it's a little bit hard. 

Also, they need to work on the user interface, as it's a little bit old. They need to improve it a little bit. 

The pricing could be lowered a bit.

We've used the solution for a while. 

Its stability has been good. The solution performs well and is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so. 

Techni al support is good. That said, it's hard to judge as you don't need support on SQL Server. It's working without trouble or issues. Therefore, it's rare to seek support for SQL Server. You rarely have to deal with them.

I've also used SQL Azure.

The recommendation is based on the use case. It depends on what use case the customer will need. If they don't have the capacity to manage their own Server, I would recommend Azure, as it's managed. Therefore, you don't have to worry about the management and administration.

The main difference between the two is, in some data types it is not available on SQL Azure while it's available on SQL Server or vice versa. There's a version of SQL Server with a little bit of limited functionality. That said, the difference is not huge. You can go back and forth between them if you want.

The initial setup is very easy. It's even easier than before, in fact. A company shouldn't have any problems with the implementation. 

The price could be less.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. If the price was a bit less or the remote access was better, I would rate it tighter.

In general, I've been happy with the product.

We are using it for storing important data. 

Its security is good. The GUI of SQL Server is also very good.

It is very costly, and that's the reason people are moving away from SQL Server. 

They have started using Linux, and Linux is the way forward for SQL Server. They have to invest a lot in that.

I have been using this solution for almost 10 years.

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is good.

I haven't spoken to their support team in the last three years, but prior to that, their support was good.

I also have experience with Postgres. The main difference between SQL Server and Postgres is that Postgres is open source. The Community version of Postgre is basically free. Postgres is very easy to set up and very easy to scale. It is quite a good database.

It is very easy.

It is expensive in terms of licensing costs and pricing. If you want to scale SQL Server, it is very expensive.

We probably have to pay extra for technical support. We also have to pay for the license of Windows on which the SQL Server resides, which is an extra cost.

I would recommend SQL Server for its stability, scalability, and ease of use. I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We use the product as a database, a data tool for everything. 

SQL Server, as a database, is great.

When it comes to the governmental sector, it is easily dealt with and can handle a big load of data. Specifically, after they added the capability of building a big data cluster from the SQL Server itself it's been great. 

If it was a database developer who was working with it or database admin, it provides a lot of tools and potential utilization that helps in doing the work in the right way.

Stability-wise, it's stable. 

If we want to expand to other servers and create an extra node, it's expandable. If you want to connect it with another, let's say, cloud node, it's also expandable with the cloud node. 

Security-wise, it provides most of the required security aspects in the market suchg as hashing, or encrypting, or hiding some data in tables (according to privileges and tools of the users). That can be done throughout it easily. 

It's an out-of-the-box solution. Lately, after they created the SQL Azure, if you use the Azure SQL Explorer, or SQL Server Management Studio, both of them can connect to the same database easily. It's natively built on the same core.

In my experience, while working with multiple sectors, such as banking, services, et cetera, there are some limitations for some sectors when dealing with the data.

It would be great if we were able to run it on multiple operating systems and not only stick with Windows. 

I've been using the solution for five or maybe six years. It's been a while. 

The stability is great. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is reliable. 

It's very easy to scale the solution in multiple ways. If a company needs to expand, it can do so easily.

I can't say it is easy to deploy as it depends on the admin, however, it is doable. Most of the databases, in general, require configuration. Therefore, if the admin knows what he's doing, then it's super easy.

A full deployment, depending on what is needed, might take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes. It's fast.

I can't speak to the pricing. I don't have any information on that.

It's my understanding that we pay for licensing on a yearly basis. 

There is also another added product they created, called Synapse, Azure Synapse Analytics. Both of them are similar to Microsoft PowerBI on-prem with SQL Server on-prem.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There are other competitors that are also doing a very good job as well.

We primarily use the product for internally developed applications. There's some business intelligence and data warehousing used as well as some financial information.

It's evolved over the years. It's become a truly useful enterprise situation and an enterprise tool. The amount of data that it can contain is significant.

The ease of administration, in general, is the solution's most valuable aspect.

You can make the solution work pretty fast. Performance isn't an issue.

The initial setup is quick and easy.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good. 

Its ability to handle certain kinds of large data could be improved. Its high availability, segmentation, and disaster recovery features can be improved upon also.

There are not really any significant features that I'd like to see added to it.

I've been using the solution for a long time. It's been 25 to 30 years at this point. 

The solution offers very good performance and is pretty reliable. 

The stability is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution scales pretty well. I would rate it at a four out of five. If a company needs to expand, it shouldn't be an issue. 

It's used pretty extensively by a lot of people in our organization. It's used for everything from management to clerks and external users. Clients use it in some way, shape, or form.

I've used technical support in the past and I would rate them as average. They aren't bad. 

I've also used Oracle and MySQL in the past. This company hasn't switched. I've just used other solutions in various roles over the years. We have Oracle in place for our financials still. There's no need for my SQL and Postgres. They're open-source tools.

The initial setup is very straightforward and the deployment is quick. You can have it up and running in three minutes. It's not a problem to get it set up.

You only need one person to handle any maintenance tasks on it. 

We handled the entire deployment in-house. We did not need an integrator or consultant to assist us.

The licensing cost varies widely, depending upon what methodology you employ. It could be very cheap, for example, it could be less than $2,000. Alternatively, it can go up to well over $100,000.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I'm currently using the most recent version of the solution. 

I'd advise those who wish to use the solution to first practice a bit with it.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. It's a very solid product. It's very stable. The ease of use is pretty high and the amount of support that's freely available for it is significant.

I love the developer version. Microsoft tells you about all the cool things they provided for everybody. You can develop and do anything with it. It's really good to learn. Oracle will not give you that much freedom, and Microsoft really kills it. 

You don't do anything with it but develop, learn, break, and push it to its limits. If there are problems, you show Microsoft or ask them, "what's going on here?" There is good community support for the developer edition, and that's what I really appreciate. You can teach people about it without limitations. You can have small databases created. You can keep it for a year and then work on it. It's a good thing for learners and developers.

The price could be better. It costs a lot, and competing databases like Postgres are free.

I have been using SQL Server for about ten years.

There are problems in all systems, and I don't see any difference between open source and proprietary solutions. SQL Server, Postgres, and Oracle are all vulnerable. There are no known issues per se, but any system can be broken. There is nothing special about this database.

SQL Servers and other databases are all scalable. I just don't see any problem with scalability.

Whenever we have issues, we talk directly with Microsoft. They are responsive, and they help.

I'm more into open source solutions, and I love Postgres. I've worked as a database administrator as well. But I really hate all the tools used to manage performance or backup or just any of those disaster, recovery, and availability solutions. I hate them. They really impose a lot of overhead in a demonstration and aren't really flexible. When you're in the cloud, you don't have to worry about most of those things. 

Some of them still exist, but the cloud providers do provide them and you stick to that. You enhance them or add some more features, but really the most hated feature is, making sure that your database really can recover from many kinds of disasters. Resiliency, the most important part and when that is really managed by the cloud online, the overhead costs  are removed. The rest is really easy. Performance is okay, and there are indicated spots for data because I work with financial data and a lot of it is our important critical data. So, the cloud is really the best thing that happened to us.

When it comes to the initial setup, most of them can be automated. For example, most setup settings for progressions, management, disaster and recovery, failover, and failback. Most of those things can be automated and provisioned into one kind of pipeline. Connecting that data to an application and even provisioning from the code repository through Jenkins. Those things are really easy to automate.

It costs a lot.

I would advise potential users to use SQL Server with Microsoft Azure. I don't recommend managing it locally.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a seven.