SQL Server Reviews

While we were still using the solution, we employed version 2008, which is a bit on the old side. 

We basically used the solution for hosting the database for Sage ERP.

Stability and usability, which is quite simple, are two of the solution's most valuable features. 

The solution could be better when it comes to security. 

The solution is part of Windows services, which means that if these should stop running, the database system, too, would be affected. This makes it very crucial to constantly monitor the SQL Server, something which reflects on cheap personnel time. 

Scalability could be better.

Although it comes with a cost, using the most recent version is highly advisable, since it would ensure a certain measure of bug fixes and stability. The sole issue would involve the cost, as this is expensive. 

When it comes to integratable features, the monitoring should be addressed. 

We used SQL Server for nearly six years, although we have since moved to another platform. We have used the solution at some point within the last 12 months. 

The solution has good stability, although my advice is to use the most recent version towards this end, to provide for bug fixes. This will ensure some stability. 

The scalability could be improved. 

As support would have involved a licensing fee, we opted not to make use of this. 

We find there is ample documentation online to allow us to resolve issues through independent research.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Although it comes with a cost, using the most recent version is highly advisable, since it would guarantee a measure of bug fixes and provide some stability. The pricing is expensive, though, this being the sole issue. 

We chose not to make use of support, as this would have incurred a licensing fee. 

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten. 

SQL Server can be used for managing and storing information.

I have a lot of databases with more than one terabyte of information and we use technology, such as Stretch database to switch out the information to Azure databases with this type of technology.

SQL Server could improve the integration with nonrational database solutions, such as MongoDB.

I have been using SQL Server for eight years.

SQL Server has good performance. It is one of the best features.

We have approximately 300 instances of SQL Server. 

I have approximately five customers using this solution.

I currently have one ticket open with Microsoft support and I have been waiting about two days. However, it's not a critical incident. The technical support they provide us is good.

In the latest version of SQL Server, Microsoft has split the product. For example, if you want to start with the engine or the reporting server you have to download it separately.  I think that the installation is easier on the new versions. There are other kinds of options that you can set up in the installation progress. For example, the number of 10 DV files or the limit of maximum use of memory.

The installation process takes approximately 10 minutes.

There is a license to use this solution. However, the model is not easy to understand. There is a guide you have to read about all the information on how it works. If you read this documentation, you can understand how it works. We are paying for our SQL Servers by CPU cores with an enterprise license.

If a new company wants to implement SQL Server, they need to know that there should be a person who has all the knowledge about DBA position, such as how the SQL Server will be set up because I have a lot of customers and when I checked they have a lot of bad options or practicing in their SQL Servers instance. If someone wants to start with SQL Server, they have to improve and have good knowledge about this technology. It's important to have knowledge about this technology. They should take some courses or maybe have a person who has all the knowledge about this technology with certification, it's the most important. It's not easy to keep up to date with the best practice from a provider, in this case, Microsoft.

I rate SQL Server a seven 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.

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.

Most of the application what we use today are SQL-based applications. If you take a Microsoft ecosystem, there are many tools that connect easily with SQL - especially when it comes to reporting and analytics. Power BI is one of the good examples which can easily connect to SQL and then you can pull any report you want. SQL itself has its own tools like reporting services and transformation services. It also helps you to generate reporting and analytics and data transformation.

Overall, it helps our organization a lot. Again, it depends on what requirements and company has, and for what purpose you are using it. However, from an application relational database point of view that we are using today, it helps due to the fact that it comes with all that we need. Also, from a performance point of view, it configures well.

When you use the solution with Azure, for example, you get very good scalability. You can scale fast, whether it is horizontal or vertical.

If we use the product as a PaaS, Platform as a Service, it comes with all the security features you need - including against DDoS attacks.

The product offers good bloc storage, which you can buy at an additional cost. This allows you to have large object storage if you need it.

Over a period of time, their split engine has evolved and in the latest version, they've done a lot. Even from the management tool perspective, a lot of things have been done. A lot of functions have been added.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Technical support has been good.

The solution has the capability to scale.

The pricing isn't as high as other options.

SQL is very easy to use. That's a very good thing about it in general.

Microsoft doesn't have active-active load balancing scenarios. It's always a failover cluster. There is no active-active cluster, which other tools, other database providers like Oracle, provide. If Microsoft can consider or probably come up with an active-active cluster, then it would be good. It will be more powerful in a scenario like that.

The pricing, while not the most expensive, is still quite high.

They have something called Parallel Queries, however, I don't know how it works. I've never tested it in a horizontal way. I'd like to understand a bit more about it and be able to use it horizontally.

I'm new to my organization and have only been using the product for three or four months here, however, previously, I worked with SQL for a long time.

In terms of direct users, there are only a few. However, there are applications that are using SQL and those application's users are 100 plus, or maybe 300 to 400 plus users.

This company is in the phase of growth. If it grows as expected, then definitely the chances are high in terms of the number of users - which means we will scale up a bit.

We have direct support from Microsoft. We have Microsoft partners as well. I don't see any problem with technical support, as we ourselves are capable of troubleshooting. I'm a certified BBS developer. If there any related issues, we take care of them internally. If not, we raise a ticket from Microsoft and we get support from them. They are helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of service they provide.

The solution is very straightforward. It's not too complex. A company shouldn't have an issue implementing it. Once you install everything and get it configured as per your requirements if you are an SQL professional and an administrator, it's very straightforward.

It's doesn't take too long to set up. Within a week you can get it deployed. If you do a standalone module, a week likely is not required. If it is in a cluster module, of course, within a week you can set up a cluster and then get things done.

SQL pricing is slightly high compared to where it was before. That said, compared to other products like Oracle, they are still cheap. It's not overly expensive in comparison to others.

The final price you can expect all depends on your requirements. A standard version of SQL is always cheaper than an enterprise. If you're going to go on a cluster, it's particularly expensive. However, when it comes to the value and what is provided, that is also important.

It all depends on what you need. I cannot just blindly say that it's expensive or cheap as it all depends on your requirement. Comparatively, SQL is cheaper than other products like Oracle. Oracle is really expensive compared to SQL. 

We are customers and end-users.

I'm certified in SQL. I have a pretty good understanding of the product.

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

Whether or not it would work well for a company all depends on what purpose it is being used for. However, SQL is simple to use and simple to configure, and very powerful in terms of relational database and the SQL language and functions it comes with. If you configure it well and then use it well, the outcome will likely be very good.

We are using this solution for application databases and data warehouses.

The organization was deploying SQL before I came to it, so I assume whoever selected this type of technology was really happy with it.

That question is not that easy to answer, to say that there is a feature in a database that you like more than others. When you are running a database, you expect it to do many different things, and if fails in one area, it basically takes it out of the picture completely.

Scalability is an area that needs improvement, and the deployment is difficult, which why I'm looking for an appliance to deploy it in a much more scalable way.

I would like to know how you can scale to be a large enterprise server.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 20 years.

We were using version 16 and we went to version 19.

There are no issues with stability that are not within the norm where you deploy new versions. Microsoft is always very close. When we experience any type of glitch, Microsoft handles it and we take care of it.

It scales with a lot of effort. When comparing it to Exadata, it's easier to scale with Exadata.

Technical support is very good. We have them on-site.

They know their business very well and I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Previously, I was working with Oracle Exadata at a different company. It was great, and ran very smoothly.

The initial setup was straightforward because we had help from Microsoft.

We had help through the Microsoft team.

Our company is Microsoft SQL Server based. I used to use appliances like Exadata before I joined the organization. 

I was looking to see if there would be available technology solutions that would make Microsoft SQL Server work on an appliance to improve stability and scalability, as opposed to running or dividing into Intel-based processors and servers, and handling all of the operational issues.

Having a server that's optimized for the purpose of data warehousing and analytics, is something that I would be interested in. 

I am not sure if there is anything else available as a nice comparison.

We use SQL Server and we are evaluating Azure cloud, and Azure SQL.

I am a data person. I design data warehouses and I develop analytics.

Before implementing SQL Server, make sure that you evaluate it based on the case that you're actually planning to implement it for, and that it's not just for general purposes.

It's not built for everything and anything. You need to choose carefully.

I would rate SQL Server a seven 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.