SQL Server Reviews

We use SQL Server for storing all our company information, such as ERP, customer applications, and our wealth management systems. All of our data is stored in SQL Servers.

SQL Server is a very mature solution.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 20 years.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

The scalability of SQL Server is good. It can scale up to thousands of times more data than I have. 

We have approximately 250 people using this solution in my organization.

I have not used the support from SQL Server.

The initial setup is simple it takes approximately 10 minutes. You only need to run the setup and you have SQL installed.

I have installed SQL databases and SQL Servers regularly. I did the implementation of this solution.

This solution requires one administrator for implementation and maintenance.

Some of the licensing are very expensive, such as the Enterprise license. 

The Express version is free. There are a lot of licensing options.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

I am an integrator of this solution and my customers use this for ETL and reporting.

This solution is user-friendly and easy to understand.

The stability of the solution should be improved in the next release. Sometimes it is great, sometimes it is troublesome. I would also like data conversion and the code pages to be a bit more straightforward.

I have been working with SQL Server for the past fifteen years.

Stability can be shaky.

This is a scalable solution.

I use to work with Informatica via the Oracle package and switched to SQL because it is cheaper and a bit better than the others.

This solution is pretty easy to deploy.

SQL Server has the best licensing price.

There is a lot to learn about this solution when first using it, as with any other tool.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use SQL Server as a database management system. 

This solution is deployed on-prem. 

One of the most valuable features of SQL Server is that it's easy to use. 

SQL Server could be improved with cheaper licensing because it's very expensive. 

We have been using SQL Server since 2016, so more than five years. 

This solution is stable. 

Before implementing SQL Server, we used Oracle. We switched to SQL Server because it had good integration. 

The installation is straightforward. I was able to handle deployment and maintenance by myself. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

For licensing, we pay yearly. The licensing is very expensive, and it should be cheaper. 

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others, as long is it meets their requirements. 

We are a company that possesses data relating to the banking and telecommunications sectors. We use the solution to organize all data received from subscribers and customers. 

I feel that this is the simplest of solutions. It is user-friendly, is a robust tool and is always reliable to users. The solution is within the Windows environment. This means that all users, who are already accustomed to Windows, will naturally prefer to use this environment over that of Linux or another operating system. 

I would like to have a more directed modeling, to have the flexibility to design all databases using a graphic interface. In other words, the interface integration could be better. 

To avoid the need to write code, many users like to use the database diagrams as an overall tool and, as such, the solution should be more flexible and user-friendly. 

I have been actively using SQL Server for up to 10 years. I started with programming, moved to databases and am now concentrating on Power BI.

The solution is quite scalable, as it can be extended to replicate many computers. It can be used in a virtual environment. One would, of course, make use of the cloud. We are now gaining experience in cloud programs such as Azure and AWS.

There are two teams which provide technical support. The same team provides support for all these tasks. 

The initial setup is not without certain problems. Many users prefer to use Docker in lieu of the original selection. This is more convenient for them owing to certain configurations it possesses. However, if one is incapable of doing this initially he will find it difficult to do at a later date. An example would involve the inclusion of TCP/IP support, which is quite cumbersome. While it is not very difficult, it does require a certain amount of expertise. 

We have prepared many virtual machines. Each month we prepare these systems so that they may be ready to meet our needs. This task consumes three to four days per month. 

We have a support team who helps our users with deployment. They provide these services to our customers.

When it comes to deployment and maintenance, there are four people responsible for providing the administrative support to us and to our customers.

Our customers do pay license fees for the MS SQL Server but the Rabbit is free, as it is open-source software.

Some who pay for these prefer in-house, on-premises support, while others take a cloud-based approach. 

I am also a consultant to SQL Server.

I usually consult with databases, including the Power BI. I started with data business and now shifted to this.

I strongly recommend the solution because we are doing consulting projects using Java applications.

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

We use it for both database services and analysis services.

I believe Always On is the most valuable feature. It's also easy to use and not very tricky.

Analysis services have a lot of room for improvement. Basically, manageability on the available tools. They should have improved them already. They are not very efficient. My main headache is with the analysis service, and it would be really good if Microsoft developed some additional tools that are more user-friendly to manage the analysis. This is both from the perspective of management, users' roles, and performance analysis. My main wish for SQL Server would be that management tools for analysis services grow and mature a bit.

I have been using SQL Server for about 15 years.

It's stable. The database service is better than the analysis service, but it's quite stable. It's as stable as the support it has. If it has a good infrastructure and good machines with disks, it's quite stable.

SQL Server is vertically scalable. We have about 3,000 people using this solution.

We haven't used their technical support a lot. I would say it depends on the scope of the help you need. On a scale from one to ten, I would give technical support a seven.

I don't know the exact prices because my focus is essentially technical and not on the bills. A few years ago, they changed the billing policy for the Enterprise Edition, and it became less attractive. But I believe they are still cheaper than Oracle. SQL Server isn't cheap, but it's not expensive either. 

I would tell potential users that it's important to have a good infrastructure, but my advice is for any database, not only SQL Server. It's important to have a good infrastructure and a good network if you're planning to use Always On and clusters. I believe the most important thing is the infrastructure where the SQL Server will be based.

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

I handle the banking software. We have another software called City Life, a life insurance package. We develop those packages - the banking package and the life insurance package. We have almost 70 - 80% of the market share in our country. I also use and love Delphi. We develop in that language. The backend is SQL Server at this moment and we are researching how we can move from SQL Server to some other open source solutions.

The only problem with this product is that it doesn't have an open source version.

Our customers are willing to pay less. For SQL server they have to buy it, they have to purchase the license. So, if we can get some free open source, like Firebird, InterBase, Firebase, or something like MySQL and also PostgreSQL, whichever one is suitable for us, we'd like to pick one.

Additionally, in some cases it is quite difficult, like the lack of ease of the replication and other issues. They have to improve on that. They do not have features like "always on," which is complicated.

One feature which we don't like is that they are providing CLR, and CLR can only be written in dot net, C sharp. But actually it should be open for all languages to write CLR so that we can hide our code. The next thing is that the tangent PSQ is encryptable but it is decryptable, as well. From the developer's point of view, all procedures are exposed.

I have been using SQL Server for a long time, since version 6.5.

We are still using it, but everybody is going towards open source, that's why we would like to go for open source as well. 

SQL Server is quite stable. And now we are using the Lattice 2017 version. But the most important thing is that the license cost is quite expensive.

We solve issues on our own. If we need something we Google it and find it. There is a good communication base and a community where we can get responses, replies, and some blog posts.

I'm looking at Firebird. My concentration is Firebird. I understood and researched that Firebird is the best one because it is quite robust, it has already matured, and the developer's community is quite high and stable. I'm just researching whether it can handle the huge amount of database as it did in Microsoft SQL server.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give SQL Server an eight out of 10.

We have a few use cases. They range from temporary storage to long-term storage to backup systems. We're using the full versatile suite for the product currently. It's not just a stand-alone system.

I don't have access to that level of knowledge. We just basically work with it on a small scale capacity in our department. That type of information and statistics are held by our IT administrators.

The solution is very easy to use for me. SQL is the most user-friendly system for databasing aside from Postgres. 

Due to the financial costs of Postgres, the SQL system is a good alternative as the product can be utilized free of charge. 

It's a good learning environment, it's easy enough to learn and understand. Anybody that picks up the language early on will be able to develop in it.

With any development language, any programming or software language available, there's always room for improvement. 

With SQL, it requires the more advanced integrated capabilities of Postgres, however, those capabilities do really come with obvious kinds of costs. For example, if SQL were to improve its functionality to incorporate the functionality that is in Postgres. Obviously, some kind of financial licensing will need to be incorporated. It's a bit of a catch-22 with a system similar to an SQL Server. If we want to avoid costs, we have to take a step back from certain integration capabilities.

From a development perspective, the solution needs to be a lot easier to understand or it needs to be easier to implement API packages for connection pooling so we don't have connection interruptions when, let's say, a hundred people simultaneously access the network on a given system, utilizing a specific or single database. Any type of connection pool or connection integration that could increase the total number of users to access simultaneously would be beneficial. That said, I also know there are some security risks involved with that type of connection pooling. However, something from SQL-side that can increase its connection access or its connection stability for multiple user access to a single database system would be great.

I've been using the solution for the past six months or so.

The solution is extremely stable. It's got an amazing backup repository system, a fail-safe system for if any type of data should it be lost. It's got a backup system that stores everything on a day-to-day basis or an hourly basis as well. Depending on the backup and storage drive that you're using or the capacity of the server it is installed on or the local machine, you can pretty much back up any type of critical data, any recent data, or any archive-based data relatively fast. You can also pull that data again, based on the system restore and the server restore is fairly quick.

The solution is 100% scalable to any kind of circumstances you find yourself in. It's easy to use and ready for any type of environment you're working on. It's scalable to any environment as well as to any amount of data. The only limiting aspect of scalability is if you're working on a local system or working on a server-based system. The physical data storage capacity is the only hindrance to scalability. If you've got sufficient data storage, then the scalability is endless.

The only people, to my knowledge, that have any access to the SQL Servers would be the administration and the department of development. The numbers range from anything from 50 to 150 people at any given time.

I'm not sure if we have plans, as an organization, to increase usage.

Any technical support queries we relay to our IT administration team and the IT administration team handle it directly with Microsoft Support. I haven't actually dealt with them directly.

I have experience with Postgres.

The main functionality that I've encountered within the six months is that Postgres is capable to incorporate itself or integrate itself with any known choosing standard API. With the SQL Server, we've got to use connection strings or connection pooling to do this. The API function is not as robust in SQL Server as it is in Postgres as the Postgres user package is based on APIs. Packages based on other companies or software languages that have the communication protocols are already enabled. With SQL Server, you have to hard code those connection strings or connection poolings for the APIs, which makes it far more difficult to use. However, it is still capable of doing it, it is just a longer approach.

Due to the fact that Postgres is a fully integrated package installation, done from a single installer, with SQL Server you can do an advanced complex installation which requires a lot of IT administration background knowledge. Alternatively, you can do a stand-alone use case installation system, if you're just using it for a backup system. They've got a backup package that you install and that's the standard installation you use. Due to SQL's user-friendly approach, it's got a lot of pre-made installation packages that you can install based on the needs or necessities of the company.

The length of time that SQL Server standard installation takes obviously depends on network speed, and UT package downloads. It could take anywhere from five minutes to half an hour. This is all dependent on the network speed that you're running the server installation on. If you've got a fast enough network speed, it should take no longer than five minutes. With a home-based network speed, say a fiber line with 10 megs, it should take you about 15 to 30 minutes just for a standard installation.

The solution is very affordable. It can be used free of charge.

There are payment packages for SQL based on dollars for any level of additions. They offer enterprise, express, and production additions that are available as well as community additions and student additions, which are completely free.

Before anybody had even considered doing any kind of database access, they reviewed all possible capabilities, according to price, functionality, and integration requirements. Ultimately, they settled from the start on SQL Server.

As far as I remember, our administration team did review other options. I'm not familiar with the options that were available prior to this, however, as they stated to me, before SQL has been the one from the go ahead, the option that they chose and they've been running with it since then.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite happy with the solution so far.

Basically with any databasing system, SQL included, a company should be looking at the requirements for why they're looking for any type of databasing system. Is it for backups? Is it for storage? Is it for cross-communication between departments or inter-department communication? Who's going to have the access prior? If it's just going to be on a technical or development level, not a lot of people need to worry about integration requirements except the installation team. Other than that, companies should just look at the financial as well as system requirements that are basically needed for the project or for the company you're in. If a company needs a large scale solution, financially speaking, SQL would be a good solution, however, Postgres would be a far better solution due to its capabilities, integration and API access.

SQL Server is a highly stable solution.

The pricing and quality of the product could be improved.

I have been using SQL Server for more than 40 years.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten for stability.

Our clients for SQL Server are usually enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

Since SQL Server was one of the most commonly used products initially, it was very easy to use. I'm moving away from the solution because there are now better data storage tools. SQL Server was used for the postal service in the Netherlands, where the postal buses on the street were analyzed. SQL Server is always deployed on the cloud.

Data recovery and backup are sometimes hard with SQL Server because of the data store size. Based on the data structure, I would sometimes recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.