SQL Server Reviews

I have SQL Server running in an on-premise environment, but we are testing it out on the cloud. We are trying out using APIs to access a database. SQL Server creates a lot of opportunities for us. While some of the larger companies have Oracle, SQL Server is more common in Peru. I'm responsible for administration and implementation, including configuration and data replication.

Our biggest problem with SQL Server is latency. The communication between the cloud and the on-premises environment is slow. The data needs to be encrypted for security, and you have to exchange data certificates between environments. You can adjust the configuration to improve performance, but it would be nice if SQL Server had some templates to resolve problems.

I have been working with SQL Server for 10 years. 

I worked on Oracle Database for four years. In the last year, I have been working with various cloud databases, including Cosmos DB and DynamoDB in AWS and Azure.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10. SQL Server is an inexpensive solution. I recommend it if the project isn't sensitive. SQL is similar to Oracle and integrates well with tools in the cloud environment. The difference is that Oracle is for data solutions where there is replication and moderation.

For my business requirements, the performance is good. If we use it on a larger scale, it will not fit our business needs.

It is easy to use.

It has simple syntax, but you must check your packet on a daily basis.

We occasionally face or encounter a problem with the database table itself. Some tables and their flyers, as well as the content's data, must be truncated. It was a major issue with my ERP system because it is a backbone database application. It hasn't happened often, but it was a bad experience. Regarding some table issues, I believe we will encounter them in many applications, but I believe the other vendor, such as Oracle, has more than tools to protect my data.

In the next release, I would like to see a better user interface and a familiar syntax.

I have been working with SQL Server since 2003. It's been more than 10 years.

We use a version component for each application. One is for 2014, and the other is for 2017.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

We have two users in my company. The ERP system has nearly two users. We have about five users for subsidies and the sister company.

I'm not going to increase our usage because I'm going to the cloud. We're going to the cloud, according to my plan. Oracle NetSuite, Microsoft cloud, or NetSuite. Because they are both cloud-based, I don't need to increase the number of SQL server users, either for administration or for users.

I'm not opening a ticket with SQL about the issues we experienced, because it was opened by my partner, but it didn't solve the problem. For my table, it almost uses truncate comma syntax, and it flushes my table contact.

Approximately 10 years ago, I used Oracle Database.

The initial setup is straightforward. I did not encounter any issues.

We have 12 technical teams with four admins to maintain the solutions in our companies.

I don't need a license for it as I will be migrating to Office 365.

I would recommend this solution for small and medium-sized companies, but for enterprise businesses.

I know it's not the best, but this application meets our requirements.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I use the client, however, I can also use the server, the Microsoft SQL Server Studio. I can use both, both the client and the studio.

We connected Automation Anywhere to the DB. Our reporting tool is also connected to that DB. Our financial application is also connected to the DB and some other databases too as well as some of our APIs.

I like the way it can manage the users from the security section where you can change their roles. 

SQL is simple to manage, as long as you know the script, and know the tables that you make reference to. If there are errors, you can easily debug them. 

You can easily debug and resolve your issues. 

The ease of backup, how you can back up and call up your backups too is great. Backups hardly get corrupt, except if maybe you have some bad hard drive clusters or bad hard drive sectors.

It is stable.

It's an easy-to-use product.

I find the solution to be scalable.

The pricing could be more affordable.

It's like to see less frequent updates. They should be once a month.

I've been using SQL Server for a very long time.

The stability is great. It's very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The product scales well. If you need to expand it, you can.

We have around 50 users on the solution right now. 

The solution is pretty problem-free and therefore it would be rare to have to reach out to support.

We've always used SQL. I also use SQLite.

The initial setup is very simple, very straightforward. It's not too complex. 

The time it takes to set up isn't long. The time of installation is determined by the local system or the server where you are installing it to. That said, it's a light solution. For me, it took maybe ten minutes. 

We have eight people who are technical and can handle deployment or maintenance tasks. 

I did the installation myself. It's not hard to do. You don't need a consultant or integrator.

We pay a monthly subscription fee. 

I'm an end-user.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

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 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. 

It is used for everything under the sun. We're currently using it for a health pass for a medic aid information management system. It is also used by companies in banking and retail.

We are using SQL Server 2014 on Windows Server 2012 platform, and we also have SQL Server 2016 on Windows Server 2016 platform. I have primarily worked on the hardware, but I am now also working in the Amazon AWS cloud.

The entire solution that we're deploying is built on Microsoft SQL Server as a database engine. Our solution is completely engineered for that, and if we attempt to deploy it in any other database engine, it is going to be a huge nightmare.

Microsoft SQL Server is one of the better database administration software packages out there. It runs primarily on Windows Server platforms, but it can also run on Linux platforms.

Primarily, the data replication and the backup areas can be improved. It should have data replication capabilities and uptime capabilities.  The native SQL Server Backups take more time than do the backup processes from LiteSpeed, and the backup compression is a little less.  

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.5, which came out about 30 years ago.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can run the database engine on the C drive, or you can run it on a large cloud array or a disk array. Currently, we just have developers and testers accessing it.

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you know how to set it up, it is easy, but you have to learn that over time. For a new user, it is detailed. You need to have the right things in place at the right time before you actually install the software.

To create an instance, it takes about an hour overall. This includes deploying the basic system, applying the latest service pack, and then applying the latest cumulative update.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, the number of staff members required would depend on the implementation. It requires coordination amongst teams. It is a team effort. The database administrator creates and runs the jobs that create the backup file. You need to have somebody for copying the backup files to offline storage. You also need to have system administrators for setting up the hardware.

I would advise others to just be familiar with Windows concepts.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. If you're familiar with Windows concepts, it just works.

We do backups or restore or query tables to create the views, create some triggers to send the attachment report files, and to report on data.

It makes managing the database easy. Backups are very quick.

Sometimes we experience issues with its stability.

I have experience with SQL Server for 3-4 years. 

Sometimes we experience issues with its stability.

Five thousand users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is easy. Fifteen twenty minutes required for deployment. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.