SQL Server Reviews

We provide support services to clients. We find that some of our clients are running the latest system while others are still on Windows 2016, others are moving to 2019. Some other clients take time to upgrade. If I interact with five clients, I'll basically be in five different environments.

Our use case for the SQL Server is for transaction processing. We store all the transactions that occur. For example, if you now purchase something from the point of sale, all the information about the good you are purchasing gets stored on the SQL Server. 

When you perform a transaction that information is stored at the bank that owns the point of sale and perhaps even your bank, where your money is will be stored in a SQL Server.

All the people in all of the organizations, which are involved in the process use SQL Server.

If your transaction goes through my server, I store part of the transaction there, and if I have to route that transaction to Visa or Mastercard, they have their own SQL Server, and they also store the transaction up until you get receive your goods at the particular merchant. Almost everyone in that transaction stores the information on their respective Microsoft SQL server.

The most valuable feature would most likely be querying. We query a lot, we use a lot of stored procedures. As for other features, such as replication and all other more fancy features we don't use them the most. I do not know, but perhaps the DBAs would be the best people who know of the features that they use, but as far as how I use it, it's just for querying and running stored procedures. We use the bare minimum features.

We do not know all the features of SQL Server.

If SQL Server could perhaps run on Linux, that would be good. Most of us prefer Linux and I've used a lot of Linux. I understand that SQL Server is quite powerful, but I'm not sure if the functionality is there, but if it could be used in an open-source type of environment, it would be very good.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

SQL Server is stable and is a high-performance database. We do hundreds of transactions per second, it's fairly robust, it does not struggle. Mostly, if your hardware is strong enough and you've set it up properly, then you can actually perform a lot of transactions per second on a SQL Serving installation.

The scalability of SQL Server is relatively easy. if you are in a Microsoft environment, then I think that it relatively it should not be that difficult. However, I haven't been on a project whereby we have had to scale.

SQL Server is suitable for all companies in my experience, ranging from small to large enterprises businesses.

I have not dealt much with technical support, because most of the time when we have issues, we go online. If it's a Microsoft issue, then we go and read up what that issue is. If there's an error, then there are places on the Microsoft support system where we are able to enter in the error code and it is able to tell you why you have that problem. As far as dealing or interacting with people or technical support from Microsoft, I have not done that.

I use MySQL and when comparing the solutions I have found the SQL Server is much more professional, and it's quite big and robust. MySQL is a community of people who are contributing to a project and you have to hack them in order for it to work. But it is quite good as well.

The installation is straightforward and not complex. However, it depends on some of the features that you may want to use. I think it is simply because you only need to tick whatever functionalities you want to use and the ones that you don't need to use, you don't select them.

Most of the time we are doing the implementation from scratch. If it's a big bank, then they would normally have dedicated people who deal with SQL. However, it depends on the customer.

There is some maintenance that is required, such as updates and tuning. We need to find ways of filling up the data so that it doesn't get stale but normally with regular updates, you should be fine.

I cannot comment on the price because I find that the organization already has a license when I arrived. I have not had a sneak peek at the price. When you join an organization, they tell you we are using the 2018 version and that someone purchased it. I don't know who purchased it, I'm not privy to that kind of information.

My advice to companies that are wanting to implement the solution is they have to make sure that they've have a proper skillset. When you have the proper skillset or people who are certified it would make for a better investment into the product. When you are certified, then you know the system in and out and you should be able to have the best implementation for the type of business you have.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

The solution can be used for a host of applications.

The maintenance and tasks should be improved so as to reduce database files.

The complexity of the database should also be reduced, so that its size can be diminished. 

I have been using SQL Server for around ten years. 

The solution from the 2008 version is stable. I like the defined database and the ease with which it can be used and that enquiries can be made. 

I believe the solution to be scalable and plan to increase our usage. 

Installation is relatively easy, although I do not recall how long it took. 

We made use of an integrator.

There is not much technical team required for the deployment and maintenance. It consists solely of engineers.

The licensing is on an annual basis. 

Prior to going with SQL Server I utilized the Oracle Database.

There are around 15 people making use of the solution in our organization. Every computer processing unit has its own license. 

I would recommend the solution to other users. 

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution as a relational database system.

The solution offers very high performance.

It is a very reliable solution. We find it to be quite stable.

We've found the product to be very scalable, specifically from MSSQL. 

The product offers various deployment models.

The Message Broker portion of the solution is not very scalable in comparison to the rest of the solution. The problem is, you can exclude that portion.

The Task Scheduler has a lot of shortcomings. This could be improved quite a bit.

The enterprise version of the product should be more cost-effective.

We've been using the solution for the last 15 or so years. It's been a while. We have a lot of experience with it.

The stability of the product is very good. It offers excellent performance. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is extremely scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so without any problems.

The enterprise version of the solution needs to be priced more competitively.

We have a couple of models. We lease through Azure monthly, which is for the Standard version. We have had to purchase the Enterprise version to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars, which is just ridiculous.

On top of that, there aren't really any other knock-on costs.

We have experience with almost every angle of Microsoft ecosystem that you could imagine.

We're a direct customer. We own a MSSQL server. We have it deployed both on-premises and on the cloud, so we use different deployment models. We have distinct instances in the cloud and we have distinct instances in our on-prem.

I would warn other organizations to not use their Message Broker and don't rely on their Task Scheduler. Look elsewhere. Go look at Oversource, Rabbit MQ, Azure Message Broker, or something other than what's built into Microsoft's SQL server. That would be my advice.

Our original architecture messaging infrastructure was based on Microsoft SQL server's Message Broker. It's been a complete disaster. It's a black hole that can't be diagnosed or supported in terms of troubleshooting from Microsoft when it doesn't work. When it doesn't work, it just doesn't work and no one can answer why. That is very bad. The intended use of it was for enterprise messaging. However, that is not a use case for MSSQL Message Broker, period. We're in the process of moving in a couple of directions. We're going to move to Azure Service Bus as an interim solution, as our current technical capabilities are very Microsoft-centric. Then, the next step will be to move to other more enterprise-class messaging and queuing subsystems like RabbitMQ.

The SQL server as an engine probably deserves a very high nine out of ten. It's a very, very efficient relational database management system. And it is very scalable.

Currently, I'm moving to another set of projects. One is for a small company that supports a client and is building on a different surface on the SQL server. The cloud that is used is essentially Amazon AWS.

SQL SSIS is the most useful aspect of the solution.

We find the product to be relatively stable.

The solution seems to be pretty flexible.

Due to the fact that I'm dealing with the product more as a data analyst, the SQL Server management studio is really relatively primitive compared to other more advanced tools. There are other tools on the market that are much more advanced. It would be better if they managed to give us a bit more of a user-friendly product with just a bit more meat on the bone. It's a bit basic.

There are a number of features that are lacking. Just recently I had to do something and it's not available on the SQL Server. However, it's available on another solution that's actually a much cheaper product. 

Some areas need improvement. For example, how you deal with the manipulation of data is probably not the best.

While I haven't constantly used the product all of the time, overall, I've used it for over 10 years at this point. I have quite a few years of experience with it.

The solution is quite stable. It doesn't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

In general, the solution is scalable. Microsoft, compared to the others, tends to focus more on the programming ability of the solution rather than the user experience. Rather than making it more user-friendly, they tend to make it more program-friendly.

We have about 70 users on the solution currently.

It's my understanding that the client is planning to scale up to be able to take on more customers in the near future. They may therefore increase usage.

Mostly, I personally am on the analytics and new project development side of things in our organization. Therefore, I typically don't deal with technical support. I can't speak to how supportive, knowledgeable, or responsive they are. 

I typically use SQL wherever I go, however, I don't necessarily use Microsoft all the time. I also occasionally use a solution called Teradata.

I was not involved in the installation of the solution. I'm more on the side of creating metadata. Therefore, it would be difficult for me to comment on if the solution was easy or difficult to implement or how our team deployed it. I don't have any exact details on that front.

While there are costs involved in using the product, I'm not a part of the billing or payments team. I can't speak to how much the solution costs or how much our organization pays. I do not know if it's monthly or yearly and how long our contract is for, if we have one.

I'm using the 2016 or 2017 version of the solution.

There are many SQL options. I'd only recommend this one if it made sense to the individual company and their requirements.

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

We use on-premises, standalone deployment of SQL Server for our own CRM database. There are around seven to eight users in our company. 

SQL Server suffices our main requirement of a small database, and it is also very cost-effective.

The features that we have found the most valuable are reliability, availability perspective, and current scalability. 

The scalability and the high availability feature can be expanded or improved. Currently, there is a limitation on scalability. 

A feature similar to the Oracle Diagnostic feature can be included to provide a better user experience. 

We have been using SQL Server for around 10 years. 

Stability and scalability are both good. It suffices for our current requirements, but if we want to scale up in the future, it has limitations.

We sometimes contacted Microsoft technical support, and we also have in-house Microsoft support. We are happy with the support.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

Our in-house team handled the deployment. 

SQL Server is a cost-effective solution for a small database. 

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. 

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. 

Not a ten because it has some limitations. When considering overall scalability, reliability, features, if you look at Oracle, it's still ahead of SQL Server.

Probably the most useful feature of SQL Server is the ability to write and execute SQL on the fly.

Even though there are some very useful features on Oracle, MySQL, and other platforms, the SQL Server by far has the most robust capabilities of any database platform.

In my experience with numerous coding languages and platforms, the SQL Server has the only programming language that allows the user to create, compile, and execute code in its own language.

To clarify, Java, .NET, PL/SQL and all other programming languages can dynamically create code, but not their own. In other words, Java can dynamically create SQL and execute it, but it cannot create Java and compile/execute.

Other great features are:

• Passing tables as parameters
• Table valued functions
• Horizontal table partitioning
• Very granular disk partitioning

The most recent example is a data warehouse I've created for a client that enables us to use a "no-SQL" construct. This is only possible due to the dynamic SQL capability.

Our client collects data from dozens of sources with little to no commonality between them. With other platforms, this would require a table for each data source. However, because of the dynamic SQL, we have three tables that will accommodate ANY data source and it will never require us to change the data warehouse schema.

As a result, maintenance is virtually zero.

The only real improvement I've been looking for is finally being addressed by Microsoft.

Since SQL Server only ran on Windows, it was not competitive with other platforms which could run on Linux. This has recently been realized with the release of SQL Server for Linux. I currently have the pre-release version and I'm very impressed with what they have so far.

I have been using SQL Server for 17 years.

We did not encounter any issues with stability. None at all.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability. I have been able to create databases with billions of records with no degradation in performance. The partitioning has been a critical feature in enabling scalability.

In my experience with their support, I would rate it as outstanding. Their techs are professional and extremely helpful.

I typically use whatever database platform my client uses. However, whenever I am provided with the option to choose, I will always go with SQL Server.

In older versions, the setup was rather onerous. However, in the latest several releases, it has been extremely simple to install and set up.

Do the research and get the correct licensing model for your given purpose. A lot of people gravitate toward the Open Source databases because they don't have an upfront cost.

I find that what you don't pay upfront is what you have to invest in development and maintenance time on implementation. On far too many occasions, I have spent weeks writing code for features that SQL Server already has built in.

Either pay for the licensing cost or pay multiple times that for the labor involved in creating features, from scratch, that are native to products like SQL Server and Oracle.

I have a good deal of knowledge on SQL Server, and Oracle, MySQL. I have some familiarity with DB2 and PostgreSQL. The database platform chosen will ultimately depend on the needs of the client.

Look very closely at the built-in features. For those features that you may need, estimate what it would take to replicate that same functionality on the "free" products.

The comparison is not on the licensing cost. It's on the features and the license cost versus the labor cost.

We use the product as a database for the applications. 

The tool helps us by being available always. 

We don't encounter any issues with the solution. 

The tool is expensive.

I have been using the product for the last ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

The tool is scalable. 

The tool is easy to install. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

I would rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten. It is not extremely cheap but also it's not the most expensive product. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. 

Performance-wise, SQL cannot handle large amounts of data. In the next release, I would like them to commission SQL Server on Linux, as has been announced in the past but has not yet happened.

I've been using SQL Server for thirteen to fourteen years.

SQL is a highly unstable server - there are patch updates on the Windows server every week, which is why we only use it for non-critical systems. 

The initial setup was very easy - much, much easier than Oracle - and took about a day to complete. Microsoft is less demanding because everything is GUI, unlike Oracle, where you need to use command lines.

This is a very cheap product.

SQL's performance is good enough if you have a low amount of data. For those looking into implementing SQL Server, I would advise first analyzing your requirements and whether your system is critical or non-critical. If it is non-critical, go for SQL as it will save you in terms of cost, but if it is critical, avoid SQL as it will bring you down in one day. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.