SQL Server Reviews

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. 

The solution is a part of a product. We use it for our database, among other items.

The solution is very stable.

The product scales well.

From a security perspective, we have no complaints. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

The solution should work to improve its search functionality.

It would be ideal if the solution offered better integration capabilities. In the future, we expect that our company will need to make more integrations with other systems.

I've been using the solution for three years. It hasn't been that long.

So far, the stability has been very good. We haven't experienced any crashed or anything of that nature. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable and the performance is good.

The solution is very scalable. The only thing that would limit its ability to expand is how your environment is designed. That said, a company should have no trouble scaling it if they would like to.

There are only five of us using the solution right now.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

While I haven't had a chance to open a ticket with technical support, I plan to open one next week, as I have an issue I need to ask them about. However, since I have yet to be in contact, I cannot evaluate their level of service.

The initial setup is not complex or difficult. It's easy. It's very straightforward and the setup guide is available if you Google it. Anyone can search for the installation guide on whichever version you're installing.

The deployment is quick. It only takes about 30 minutes or so.

We have a technical team of five engineers. If any maintenance is needed, we can handle it. 

I installed the product myself. I found an installation guide and just followed the directions. I didn't need the help of a consultant or integrator.

We do not currently pay a licensing fee in order to use this product.

I'm currently using the 2017 version. I am not using the latest version of the solution.

In general, I would rate it at an eight out of ten. For the most part, we have been satisfied with its capabilities.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

It is used for the backend database for our ERP system and the document management system. We are using its latest version.

It saves time. Our data is also a lot more secure. Prior to SQL Server, things were run in a flat-file database that required a ton more maintenance to keep it running. SQL Server is pretty much bulletproof. It just runs.

The management studio is probably the thing we use the most for running quick queries and creating quick reports. Quite often, somebody comes and says, "Hey, can you find XYZ?" It is so much easier just to jump in there and run a quick query.

They can build more performance-tuning tools in it. They can also make the stuff a little more user-friendly and provide the ability to schedule jobs.

They can perhaps also streamline it a little bit so that it is not so resource-intensive, which would be helpful. SQL Server has a tendency to consume all the memory you allow it to. If you are not careful, you can basically break your server. I would like to see it having a smaller footprint in terms of system resource consumption. 

They might want to consider re-evaluating their pricing. It is expensive.

I have been using this solution for 12 years.

It is pretty much bulletproof. We never had data corruption and database failure. We've had hardware failures, but that's not the fault of the software.

It is very scalable, and you don't run into indexing issues like you would with a flat file. I don't think we've even scratched the surface in terms of its capabilities. Our databases are fairly small in comparison to others in our industry who are using the same software. 

We've got about 40 users using it, and primarily, they don't touch the database directly. They're just using it through ERP and our document management system. They are just non-IT employees. They are office users.

We're using it fairly extensively for the core of our business software, and we will likely increase the usage of it. We've got some projects in the hopper that will take advantage of SQL Server. So, we plan on increasing our usage of it.

I didn't have the need to contact Microsoft support.

We haven't used any other solution prior to SQL Server. It was just a flat-file.

It was pretty straightforward. It basically walks you through the process. It took a couple of hours.

Initially, we used a consultant to set up our ERP system, but that was 12 years ago. Since then, we've upgraded it several times, and that was done in-house. Our experience with the consultant was overall positive.

For its maintenance, we are a department of two.

We have definitely seen a return on investment when it comes to SQL Server.

It is expensive, especially when you have open-source products that are just about as functional and they're free. They might want to consider re-evaluating their pricing.

We purchased it in retail. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of 9,000. There is just the standard licensing fee. If they migrate this product the way they're trying to do everything else, eventually, it is going to be subscription-based, which is going to suck, but that's the way the industry is going, so it is what it is.

If you've never done it before, Microsoft has plenty of documentation and online guides to walk you through it. Just take your time, and follow the steps. If you can do it in a virtual environment, it is better because it is easier to start over if you mess it up, but it is fairly user-friendly. If you have questions during the setup, stop and Google it. The information is out there.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten because there is always room for improvement.

Our primary use case for this product is as a transaction database and for the provision of rational data through the application-based server. The main application of my current organization is pointing towards the SQL server database and some servers which are later used for data warehousing. So mainly we use it for transaction data and data warehousing. I'm the assistant manager and data administrator, and we are customers of SQL. 

Security is obviously the most valuable feature because I can provide certain logins for a particular level of security and I can provide specific permissions for certain logins. That's a very good feature. I like the user interface as well, it's easy to use. The SSMS Management Studio, which we use to do some work in database file query is a recent feature from 2018 and the SSMS is quite good. It has many features and it also shows the query statistics which I was not getting previously. The other feature I like is the query store which helped me a lot to analyze the data getting hit on the database. 

I'd like to see a simplification of the query optimizer and feel that SQL needs to look into the internal processing of the query because the query optimizer sometimes uses a different query plan, which we don't expect. It is similar to the triggers they have which are used after execution and not before. For example, if I'm running a query, my trigger will be run after the query has executed although I sometimes need the trigger before execution. That's a feature not supported by the product. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

It is quite scalable compared to other data engines and the latest version has increased support for new technologies, like Python and other languages. It's a big improvement on the previous version. We have 30 to 40 SQL servers installed and they're used for different different applications; internal applications, client applications as well as for ETA tools and reporting purpose. We probably have up to 200 users querying the SQL server of the product on a daily basis.

I'm satisfied with the technical support. Whenever a call is raised to Microsoft they see to it that all our questions are answered properly and in a timely manner. It doesn't take long for things to be resolved. 

The initial setup is very straightforward, just like any typical software where you just click next, next, next, next. You just need to know your environment properly and which exact features you need to install. Deployment takes max one to two hours to install on-premises. Depending on the environment and whether or not you're installing any cluster environment, it will take a couple of hours. To deploy a stand-alone SQL server doesn't take much time. 

I would recommend this solution, particularly for OLTP purposes, the transactional data purpose rather than for warehousing. For data warehousing I think there are better solutions but for the transaction data, for application purposes, SQL Server great.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We use SQL Server to ingest and to extract reports for multiple customers. 

SQL Server is cost effective in multiple ways - both the cost of software and the cost of the resource. Meaning, how many resources do we have and what is their expertise level? How easily can they use the SQL Servers or can I use any of the software? Do I need to hire somebody else from the outside to work on the cost?

The feature that I have found most valuable is that it is easy to code. You can very easily get a resource to work on that. For example, if we have a big project it's hard to get a good resource in the IT industry. However, since SQL Server is the most popular solution, you can easily get resources to use it so the risk factors are very, very low. Even if someone leaves the company, you can easily replace them.

Additionally, it is very stable. 

You don't need to struggle for anything. Most of the codes are there.

In terms of what could be improved, everything on-premises is now moving to the cloud. Obviously SQL Server has also moved because Microsoft has its own cloud called Azure SQL and azure synapse. Every solution comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. Each cloud has its own way to maintain resources and that plays a major role. But I would say that Azure Clouds are easy to work as compared to others. To  Performance-wise it's still not as good as on-premises, but it is easy to work with. For example, if you are familiar with the SQL server then you don't need to put any effort to work on the Azure SQL or Azure Synapse. Your efficiency will not decrease and you can easily manage any projects. Its advantage is that it is very similar. Apart from that, if you moving to any other Warehouse like Snowflake, redshift with existing SQL server resources is a little difficult and organizations need to spend money on their training. Which increases cost. 

I have been using SQL Server for almost 10 years.

We just use the on-premises SQL because we have our own server, and we use it on that.

It is stable.

SQL Server is scalable. We started with one hundred data points and now we have up to 1500, it's scalable. You just need to install the new version every time it comes out with a new capability, such as SQL Server 2019 where you can do multiple things.

If I'm talking about the on-premises maintenance requirement, we need a DBA for that if the SQL maintenance is required. But if you move to the cloud this is automatically done by Microsoft itself. however, this still requires some maintenance though.

Microsoft has one of the best supports. They are highly enlightened. It is a very mature product. Even if many times I feel I can do it myself, I choose to reach out to the support team because they have a large number of users and they outsource. You are definitely going to get the outcome you want.

It's hard to tell the exact reason of switching. As I told earlier, Choosing DB cannot be measured only on the performance of the Database. Multiple points need to be considered.

The initial setup is straightforward. Again, it's a mature solution, so it is very straightforward. You don't need to worry about that.

My advice is that this is the time to completely move to the cloud. If you have a golden or platinum partnership with Microsoft or you have good Microsoft resources then best is to move azure clouds. Azure DB services have been improved a lot in the past few years and it continually improving like others. 

They are trying to make it closer to the on-premises version. I know it cannot be exactly like on-premises but they can bring most important features. For example Azure brings SSIS features in ADF which solve lot of issues. Another example, Azure launch Snowflake connector with ADF which saves us to writing code in Azure function. 

At last in my view, you need to evaluate what exactly you are looking for and what type of resource do you have and what is the growth rate of your data. Do you have a direct partner with Microsoft? All things are interrelated and the decision has to depend on these.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SQL Server a Seven.

I would rate MS SQL Server 4/5 for its ease of administration,rich features, Nice GUI support for all its complex features.

Valuable features include:

1.Management Studio (Nice GUI support for all its complex features.)

2.Hot add CPU

3.Configure Dynamic memory also configure MIN and MAX memory.( Very flexible)

4.Replication ( Very Simple).

5.Clustering (The best high availability feature available among all
its compitators due to its robustness and scalability).

6.SSIS ( Very rich).

7.In memory OLTP in SQL Server 2012

8.Always On (High Availability) in SQL Server 2012

9.SQL Server Profiler

10.DMVs

The MSBI features SSAS, SSIS as well as SSRS together has enabled us to build a data warehouse for our Enterprise with Business Intelligence reports around the data. We have fully exploited its all complex features like Slowly Changing Dimensions in SSIS etc.

I am not sure if these areas have been taken care in SQL 2012 but areas for improvement include:

1.In SQL 2008 ,Data encryption is not a fully mature feature.Encryption works fine for individual rows.For handling a batch a for loop has to be written.This is not straight forward.
2.Horizontal partitioning is not a fully mature feature.In horizontal partitioning Partition key has to be part of primary key.This becomes difficult to implement in already existing database.

14 years.

No not at all.

No.

No.

Good.

Good. We have had only a few issues.

We were a Microsoft shop (.NET, Share point etc) primarily, hence using MS SQL Server 2008.

It was straightforward.

We implemented through in-house.

1. Find out the right licensing mode you require (Comes with different options CAL/Server and # of CPUs and Virtualisation).

2. Use the Enterprise lincencing or Standard edition or Web according to your need.

3.Make use of SQL Server Clustering or LOg Shipping high availability solution, the best you can find.

The solution is used primarily for medium companies in vertical accounting applications. We use the solution as a good general-purpose database.

I value the ability it gives me to test on small machines and easily scale up to larger devices for live applications.

When we run into problems, it's usually during installation, and finding answers to the problem has been a nightmare because the documentation is terrible.

Likewise, I find the business reporting rather poor, and the solution doesn't work well as a data warehouse product. When I tried to use it as one, I did not find it very satisfactory.

I've used SQL Server for about 20 years, probably. I've used a number of different versions, including 2010 and 2007.

We have never had a stability problem.

We rarely have more than a few hundred users. It's more about the person using it since we don't have heavy, continuous use.

We've never had a sensible answer from technical support.

I have generally found implementing the solution easy. But when it comes to the time we took to implement the solution, the problem's always been the application and not the database. The solution is usually easy to implement because we use standard facilities. If you need something special, you run into all sorts of trouble because SQL Server gives you an awful lot of ability to change the settings.

We've used it as a development tool, and it's very cheap as a development tool. Besides, someone else has paid for it for my use, so it's a question of whether the cost suits the end user. The solution has a good midrange price for the applications in which we've used it. Oracle's pricing would raise more eyebrows, but SQL Server's pricing has proven satisfactory for our market range.

We mainly use SQL Server because it's cost-effective for our applications. We've occasionally tried other databases for various reasons. We've used the Sybase database, but the Sybase database is very close to SQL Server. We've also tried MySQL, but that was more of an exercise in porting than anything else. However, it's not a fair comparison because we had done the development on SQL Server and then used that as a porting exercise.

The solution's generally been easy to use for the general cases we've used. The solution has been satisfactory for the sort of applications we've used.

We've been very much middle of the road in using SQL Server. We don't use specialist, and we've tried to keep to standard SQL as far as possible. We don't use the clustering facilities or try to use any of the specialist facilities. We could drop it and switch to MySQL or another database if we had to. We are using SQL Server, not for the particular services it's got, but using it as a middle-range product. We're taking advantage of the fact that it runs on all sorts of platforms, and it's a good value development product that works very easily for us. We're not using it for some of the things Microsoft clients find particularly useful for. We're not high-intensity users. For people like us, it fits in very easily.

For our purposes, SQL Server is just about ideal. It's easy to use and fit. Some of the later versions, in particular, have been easy to use. We have had installation problems on some of the later versions, and the documentation is poor. I'll rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a WAP server and we have it on-premises.

It's helped us connect to our company's machines.

The pricing of the product is very good.

We've found the stability to be very reliable.

The initial setup isn't too complicated. It's pretty straightforward.

Overall, the solution could be improved in future releases. We hope to improve the way we use it ourselves in our next project.

The solution could offer better integration with other solutions - specifically Microsoft.

I've been using the solution for about five years at this point. It'd been a while.

Thus far, the solution has been quite stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. there aren't bugs or glitches. It works well for us overall and we find it to be reliable.

I'm not sure about the capability of the solution's scalability. We've never really tested its capabilities, and it's therefore hard to gauge.

We have a department that handles support. I find them knowledgeable. They respond in a reasonable amount of time. 

The initial setup wasn't complex. It was pretty straightforward. We didn't have any issues with the implementation process at all.

The licensing is reasonable. It's not too expensive. We are charged on a yearly basis, however, I don't know the exact amount we are charged. I'm not a part of the billing and payments department.

I believe we are using the 2019 version of the solution.

In general, I would recommend the solution to other organizations. We've mostly been pretty happy with its performance.

We're not Microsoft partners. We are just customers.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If it had better integration capabilities with Microsoft, I might rate it higher.