SQL Server Reviews

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.

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 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.