SQL Server Reviews

SQL Server can be useful for a lot of businesses and enterprise solutions. SQL Server is very powerful and useful when you need to store, retrieve, process, and analyze a large amount of data. In my organization, almost everyone uses SQL Server. That's about 10 people using it.

SQL Server's Management Studio is very user-friendly. I like their database and the additional features it offers. It's also easy to integrate SQL Server with things like CLR, PowerShell, and command shell

I would like to see SQL Server add the ability to write to multiple sites or support replication between multiple sites at the transaction level. If we can have data available on multiple sites as quickly as possible, that would be a great feature.

I've been using SQL Server for around 10 years. I have 30 years of experience in the IT industry. In that time, I have worked on different kinds of databases, such as Oracle. Before that, I worked on FoxPro. I have also worked with PostgreSQL.

It's absolutely scalable. 

Our clients are the end-users of the SQL Server applications, and we do all the development and maintenance for them. So anything related to support, our clients take care of it.

I work on the development and performance-tuning side, so I don't do the installation but my guess would be that it is pretty straightforward by now. 

I am not aware of the cost because our clients take care of them, but I think there are enterprise licenses. If you go for Azure Cloud databases, then you just can pay as you go.

SQL Server is my favorite database. Because I've been working on it for so many years, I like it. I have only good things to say about it. I would rate SQL Server nine out of 10.

We do data warehousing, and our clients are mainly large commercial Insurance providers in the United States.

It's easy to use and fairly intuitive. I do development and data analysis, so we do a lot of work with SSIS and SQL Job Scheduler. Deploying new databases is very simple with things like BACPAC. You don't have to do all the scripting for the database, then all the tables, keys, etc. It takes all that out of your hands.

One thing I don't like about SQL Server is the way they've set up security with users and groups. It just doesn't seem that intuitive to me. Adding some more explanatory information might help some. Sometimes the documentation is a little thin, but the same could be said about a lot of products.

I've been using SQL Server on and off since it first came out in the 1990s. Most of the people I've worked for are SQL Server shops.

I can't really speak intelligently about that because I haven't been on any of the real big ones yet. 

The complexity of the initial setup really depends. Obviously, you're going to need to know a few things and there are different ways to do deployments. I like the BACPAC, which is one of the features that come with SQL Server. It's a nice feature to deploy. BACPAC really handles all of the configuration for you. If you use that, I don't think you really need to know too much. If we're talking about a small database that holds a few thousand records, it doesn't matter what you're doing. You can't make a mistake because it's just not big enough.  

We do a lot of Azure-based on-demand type systems where we host the system or we host it in Azure. We do the work for them. So we don't really do a lot of those installs.

We're going a lot heavier into Azure and we're going to be dealing with lots of volume because insurance data is pretty voluminous. I think some of our clients don't like the idea of having one gigantic VM system to run the database. That's one reason why they're switching to Snowflake. We had to do some SSRS stuff in the past, and I think they're moving over to Power BI mostly.

I'd probably rate SQL Server nine out of 10. I don't think I'd give anybody a 10, but I think nine's about the best I can do. In my experience, it's been reliable and easy to use.

We use SQL Server as a relational database mostly for the application backend activities and integrations.

The SQL Server is low maintenance, it does not require advanced technical skills to maintain or use it as you might in other similar database solutions. You need some knowledge on how to access the solution and how to query it but it is fairly straightforward.

SQL Server could improve by enhancing the integration abilities, adding more inbuilt data security features, and simplifying the maintenance.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

SQL Server is stable.

The solution is scalable and flexible.

We have approximately 15 people using the solution in my organization.

The technical support from Microsoft is good but we have learned and received the most help from the online community.

The installation difficulty level depends on the use case and environment. For example, if you need to deploy it on multiple nodes or have large amounts of storage it could increase the difficulty level. 

We have a team of approximately five database administrators and application developers who handle the setup and maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for the use of SQL Server and we are on an annual subscription.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

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.

We have hundreds of databases that are using SEL Server and there may be other capabilities.

It's a standard product that is used with standard applications, which is why we use it.

There is no lack of features.

There are newer models that are available on the market. The agility of the non-SQL-based features is relevant on the market.

Integration is one thing but it's making use of all the iterations or the new cloud data result.

Today's architectures are in many different directions. Not always via SQL relational databases, but also NoSQL databases, and they have a pretty good Java database as well.

We have been using SQL Server in our organization for 10 years, but I am not a day-to-day user.

We use a couple of the versions. We have used the 2016 version and most likely have used some newer versions as well.

SQL Server is a stable product.

We don't have any issues with the scalability of SQL Server.

We have hundreds of thousands of applications using this solution.

We have a dedicated Microsoft account team and we have also dedicated support conditions.

Areas in our organization use AWS Lambda.

We use other relational databases. The most important product besides SQL Server is Oracle. We use SQL Server and Oracle equally.

I am not a patient person with installations, but there are no issues with the installation of this solution.

We have a database team to maintain this solution along with an engineering team, an operational team and we have eternal resources.

The enterprise-level license agreement is very complicated. It's complex, not only with SQL server but with a number of products.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

Despite the core database is not SQL Server in my working company, SQL Server is widely being used as the backend for many in-house applications and customized applications like Solarwinds.

Helping to effectively and efficiently manage the business-critical data

- There are hundreds of "Dynamic Management Views" (DMVs) & Dynamic Management Functions (DMFs) that are system views & system functions that return metadata of the system state and they provide valuable insight into the current SQL instance state. 

- Resumable online index rebuild 

- Table Partitioning and the Swap out to covert a Table Partition into a separate table.

- Python & R2 Integration, Graph Databases

- Automatic Database Tuning

- Very reliable Backup technology and many more

The price could be better:

Compare to Oracle it is cheaper but with the existence of many open source databases currently in the market, consider reducing the Licensing cost. Secondly, with the Core-based Licensing since SQL 2012 Version, the SQL Licensing price has substantially increased.

Postgres Extensions is a concept in Postgres to extend the Postgres features that are very useful for Performance Monitoring & Optimizations. Similarly option to extend the features as necessary.

I have been using SQL Server for 12 years.

It's been scalable since 2016. With each version, they are adding more features which are very helpful. 

On a rare occasion, I had contacted technical support about five or six years ago and only when I had a specific use case.

The GUI-based step-by-step initial setup is easier for the initial setup and even the Jr.DBAs can handle it with minimal training. The automated installation is possible with PowerShell Scripts and the Infrastructure Provisioning and Configurations tools like Ansible. We managed to automate the SQL installation using Ansible Playbooks and Gitlab to deploy Continous Integration and Continous Deployment.

We implemented this solution by ourselves.

CPU Core-based Licensing & Windows Licensing costs are additional overheads compare to open source databases like MySQL and PostgreSQL.

Managed SQL Server Database Service in Azure is lagging with many features like Linked Server, DB Mail.

SQL Server deployment in the Cloud does not seem to be cost-effective with respect to the Licensing cost and average Life cycle of 5 years (I reiterate, this is in my opinion). 

If you take Postgre SQL and MySQL, they provide almost all the same features even though they are both open source databases.

I recommend this solution because you can engage in database manipulation, administration and manage almost all your requirements. When compared to Oracle licensing costs, SQL Server is better. 

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

While I don't like SQL Server so much, the selection was for clients so we needed to utilize it. Of course, one thing is that as great with this and other Microsoft products is that it's quite well documented and there are also light versions available. If you need to do something, you can also try it somehow on your own computer and so on. 

If I'm helping a client to define what they need to have or what they need to do in a public sector procurement process quite often we cannot fix the database as it would be limiting the competition. That's why we never rule out the SQL Server; it should be included as an option at this level.

The solution is stable. 

I haven't had issues with sizing or scaling.

If it would be more powerful it would be pretty nice. The performance is not always the best. 

Whenever we were setting up the databases, there were some character problems that did not exist on some of the other solutions. However, the exact issues are hard to recall and list. I prefer Linux solutions. That said, when we began the previous project, Microsoft SQL Server was not available for Linux platforms yet.

Nowadays, it's my understanding that there are different versions. I haven't been checking if the current versions are supporting Transact-SQL and stuff like that. I remember that when we had the first Linux-based SQL Servers were introduced, they were, of course, a bit limited from the feature point of view. Whenever it is Unix or Linux or whatever platform, it's easier to manage them and to handle them whenever you are doing remote work. 

I'm not so big fan of the Microsoft platforms as a server. However, whenever it's needed then it's needed. If you are a consultant, you need to adjust your whole mindset to whatever it's needed.

I've used the solution, approximately, for several years. However, there have been gaps. There are different phases, however, I could count something like seven years where I was in an architect position in any project where this server was utilized. 

For the needs we had for the client it was sufficient. Whatever we needed to have - whether more server or more virtual server, the performance for the platform wasn't as good as I would like. I'm not entirely satisfied.

I haven't been utilizing the scale capabilities. I don't have a clear impression on that, however, for our purposes, we've never had an issue.

I've never dealt with technical support. The databases were handled by the service provider or service operator of our clients. We have a public sector client and they have their partner who is handling or is responsible for the platforms. Therefore, if we had a problem with the platform, the right bureaucratic way to go about getting a resolution is that we contact the service provider they have. They probably contact Microsoft. The process is bureaucratic.

I'm also familiar with other servers such as Oracle. While we must do as the client wants or needs, if I could choose, I would probably utilize databases like Oracle or open-source databases more often. It depends on the cases. That said, quite often I'm in a position where I cannot suggest the technology, so I use what the client requests.

We didn't pay anything for it as it was provided for our client by the provider. I cannot say about the enterprise licenses or anything. When we began the work and we needed it for our own machines, I prefer the solutions which are available, of course, as open-source or are free. And Microsoft had this express version of their database which we can utilize as well. In that sense, it is okay, however, of course, in general, I don't know.

I've been working for a client as a consultant so I'm helping them with deployments. With one client, we're using on-premises deployments. Our client has their own service provider or service operator so they have their own IT partner who is handling their databases. If I have understood it correctly, the databases were on-premises for our client, however, it's a bit complicated when you are having and dealing with large-scale public sector actors in Finland. There are plenty of kinds of players involved.

Whether or not I would recommend the solution depends. If you are utilizing some solutions where you need the Microsoft platform-based database, it's completely okay. And if you have, for example, the solutions where you have utilized Transact-SQL or whatever, it's okay. However, if you have this kind of situation where you can make your own choices freely, you have options. And if you're utilizing Java or C, et cetera, quite often the path or logic would go towards some of the databases on the Microsoft side.

There is no clear answer. Quite often when you begin to think about your solution or you think about what you are building, the database is the first thing you decide on. There are other factors too, such as a business case or if you're just building from scratch and so on and so on. I wouldn't like to say that I never would recommend it, however, if you are building everything from the scratch and you can make all the decisions, likely it is not the first option you have or I'd suggest. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

The solution is very fast. 

The data is reliable and I can normalize the database and normalize the data so that I can collect whatever information I need. If I collect the data correctly, then I can share whatever report I want.

Normally, when the data is in the database, it will always be a long-term information holder, instead of putting it in Excel or something like a spreadsheet or something like that. 

For me, the initial setup is very easy as I have years of experience with the product.

I could use some more guidelines about making the correct queries to understand the structure better. I'd like to have a better idea and to understand how to make a nice query, which is good for the system and good for the hardware.

Sometimes you have to have different data in different tables and you want to merge them into something together. I'd like to be able to do this in a different way. 

Sometimes I need to have more optimization. I want to understand how can I optimize this or that? Especially now, when we're working with a lot of camera information, where we are using a lot of cameras for photogrammetry, we need to take this data and put it into the SQL Server and we would like to be more flexible with the data.

With so much data, things can get slow, which is why I would like to be able to understand how to better optimize queries. 

Those who are not familiar with the solution can find the initial setup intimidating and difficult. 

I've been using the solution for 30 years at this point. 

I don't have so much experience with scaling. It's my understanding that that task is a specialist job.

I have dealt with technical support in the past. I'm happy with them. They have been helpful.

I'm not only working with SQL Server. When I need the database, I will always do it in SQL Server or Maria Database or something like that.

For me, the initial implementation is easy, however, I know a lot of people can't set it up and believe everything is hard. It's difficult if you didn't know how to do it. You have to know, in the beginning, how to define what hardware you need and how many disks, for example. You need to understand if it should be a cluster disk or not. Long ago, it used to be hard disk access only. Things have changed. 

The solution does come at a cost.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

This solution is one of my favorites and I would rate it at a nine out of ten. I'm very pleased with its capabilities. 

Microsoft has a freeware option that might be called something like SQL Server Express. I'd advise new users to try to put that one up. It's easy to implement. If you need more data, then buy the correct server. The SQL Server is expensive, however, when you see how nice data is installed and how easy you can get access to it, it may be worth it. If new users need help, they can always go to YouTube to find answers for the freeware.

SQL Server has a steep learning curve, however, it's worth it to learn about it and understand it.