SQL Server Reviews

Apart from the standard SQL database-related features, the 2012 version enables the AlwaysOn functionality which enables two or more SQL Servers that can be clustered, with heartbeat across geographic locations along with high availability failover and 99.9999% uptime.

We have deployed three instances of the SQL Server, i.e., two at the primary datacenter and one at the disaster recovery facility. The AlwaysOn feature has ensured 100% database availability, even when one of the servers is down without any performance issues for the end user.

The Always ON (High Availability) functionality is support only with the MS SQL enterprise edition. It would be beneficial to many if this feature were also made available in the Standard Edition.

I am using the SQL Server for more than 10 years and the 2012 version, I have been using since the last five years.

There were no stability issues. If the initial configuration is done correctly, there are no issues. If the other servers are connected at remote locations, then the connectivity performance plays a vital role and it should be 10-15 ms for best results.

There were no scalability issues.

We have received excellent support from Microsoft and the local partners.

In the earlier versions, we used log shipping to the other servers for the failover and replication requirements. With this version, all the servers are Active/Active and there is no issue related to the availability or failover.

The basic installation is simple, whereas rest of the clustering requires an expert skill level for the configuration and deployment.

When comparing the Standard Edition to the Enterprise, it is expensive but the performance and features meet with the ROI and TCO. Thus, overall, it minimizes the redundant servers, multiple backup copies, the risk of non-availability of the latest copy at the disaster recovery.

The latest 2016 version has many more new features and functionalities, if you have the Enterprise Level Agreement and subscription model, you can upgrade to the latest version.

The Always ON (High Availability) functionality is support only with the MS SQL enterprise edition. It will be beneficial to many, if this feature is available in Standard Edition.

We use this solution to store our data and for running queries, simple select queries that enable me to create the views I need and report from those views. I'm an ESM specialist and we are customers of SQL Server. 

I like the stability of the solution, the fact that you have two, three, four nodes replicating at any given time at different locations, and they're all synchronized; if one is lost it automatically moves to another. The other advantage here is that when it comes to application maintenance, you switch onto another node while you maintain another server and there's no downtime. 

The solution could have additional security. 

The solution is easily scalable because of its flexibility.

I don't do the installation, but it appears straightforward according to those who carried out the implementation. These days deployment takes about an hour. We have 1,200 or so users. With the onboarding of more customers, we'll be increasing our use of SQL Server. For now, we have one person dealing with maintenance. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

This application is used as a contact center and would be great for banks.

The backup capabilities are extremely good.

I would like to have the ability to restore backups in the next release.

I have been working with SQL server for the past ten years.

This solution is very stable from what we have seen.

This is a scalable solution.

Technical support is very good. I am able to easily contact them and they are very informative.

The initial setup was straightforward.

This is a great solution for anyone with basic knowledge of DNS who wants to build up a database. There are many videos to help you navigate the platform.

I would rate this solution a nine 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. 

I have been working on SQL Server for installations, configuring for developers, and for creating backup jobs from the MBF files.

The solution is very easy to use.

SQL Server needs to improve in performance and monitoring because there are no specific monitoring solutions to detect and analyze events for issues in the database. You have to use another monitoring solution. If Microsoft could provide an update to this solution or provide a monitoring solution specifically for SQL Server, it would be very valuable.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

I have found the SQL Server stable.

The solution is highly scalable. You are able to implement a SQL cluster mechanism for replicating the data between two nodes of the SQL Server. If one of the nodes is down the second node becomes active.

We have approximately 20 developers working directly with SQL Server and approximately 1,000 end-users that are working on the application that is behind the SQL Server.

The technical support is good. We had a big problem and after an investigation, we could not find the solution. We needed to make use of Microsoft support team and open a specific case on the Microsoft panel. They were able to provide solutions for solving this issue.

I have used MySQL.

The installation is not very complex. However, the process could take a long time because you have to follow the step-by-step instructions for the installation. The time it takes to do the installation is approximately two days.

There is a license required for this solution. One of the problems is for smaller businesses to purchases a license because it is expensive for a lot of them to afford.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven 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.

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.

We use it mostly for integration into an ERP system. We also use it for our internal development of products.

We have many users, between 50 and 100 using the SQL Server product.

We have been using SQL Server from the start, so it's a stable product.

I think a web console for the management studio, I think that would be a good thing. I think also on load balancing. I think that's something that we can use.

We've been using SQL Server for 12 years. We are currently using the latest version. It is deployed on-premise and cloud.

The product is stable.

The product is scalable.

Right now we don't get much technical support from Microsoft. I think for all issues we encounter, we do the solutions by ourselves. I think if there should be some avenue for us to raise some issues that we are encountering, so maybe that would be something that's good for us as well. It is not easy to contact Microsoft support for this product.

Setup required two engineers to deploy it. It was pretty straightforward and took one to two days.

We didn't have any licensing costs for SQL Server.

I would recommend this product to others and give it an 8 out of 10.