SQL Server Reviews

In the current organisation there was no centralised data repository. Thus, statistics, reporting, and generic management information were not existent. With the introduction of SQL Server, we have consolidated relevant business data into one main repository. We built reporting structures and analytics on top of the repository to help analysts and teams manage themselves, as well as provide management information. From basic or incomplete reports and statistics, we moved to a full reporting data structure, providing a holistic view of the organisation's data.

Without any doubt the Integration Services and Analysis Services are the most widely used. These are the basis for data quality, data gathering, ETL process, as well as collation for the data warehouse, Cube-generation, and ad-hoc processes. The ease in which you may mold a process flow or even modularly add in new structures is something which is much needed in my job.

An area that definitely needs improvement is the Reporting Service side with the actual report server. Although to be fair, Microsoft has developed a new branch of tools for reporting; presumably that is why they have not improved the Reporting Service side. Nevertheless, if this was not the case then, yes, it would be an area for improvement. Another area would be the SQL Server process monitoring, which is quite basic and could sustain more information.

Overall, SQL Server 2014 is a very stable product and so far I cannot remember major issues that I have encountered. The only item which I can list is application failure during Integration Services debugging, when restarting a process flow. In a number of instances the solutions fails. I have not given this much thought and simply stop and start the debugging service rather than restarting.

So far, we have had no scalability issues. I have read about instances where people encounter issues online, but fortunately enough I have never encountered issues.

Yes, in the past I have worked with different versions of SQL server and have switched due to upgrades to utilise the latest version. I have also used Oracle, Tableau, SAP, and Jaspersoft.

The main reason I went for SQL Server is because it felt easier and more adaptive. Also, most of the products we use within the organisation are Microsoft-based, so that provided an extra advantage over the rest.

Not too complex. We had spent a number of months on the design and planning stages, deciding how we would go about the setup, security, and accessibility aspects, so that when it came time for the actual setup, the process looked pretty straightforward. Don't get me wrong, it still took a number of days to finalise, but we had a concrete plan of action, the steps needed, and the work was delegated accordingly.

My advice is quite straightforward. If you know the number of users who really and truly need access to the Server then it is a no-brainer. If you do not know, then get the basic package and minimum licenses and start from there. Needless to say, users can develop/use data structures outside and then deploy onto the Server.

Within the current organisation, we did not look at other options. I was pretty confident that the product would do the job, based on my previous experience with similar products. One key factor which pushed us to choose SQL Server was the cost of the product versus the amount of work to develop/maintain.

I rate it eight out of 10. It is quite a good product and has improved dramatically. Like all products, it has bugs here and there and some areas still need improvement.

I have been using the solution for the past two and half years, however, I have worked with older versions of SQL Server (2012, 2008, 2005). The solution is quite powerful and versatile and I have not yet used all the areas/modules of the solution. It is not always easy to utilise all the available modules for the solution, especially if your work is focused solely on a particular area. Nonetheless, I try to use different areas for side projects.

Plan thoroughly before, and once implemented go through the structure regularly and remodel accordingly. When planning, go through all the various sections, resources, accessibility, security etc.

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. 

We are using SQL Server for data processing.

The most valuable features of SQL Server are the speed, great support, and it is from a known vendor.

The security features of the solution could be better.

I have used SQL Server within the past 12 months.

SQL Server is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution. We increase the number of users every year.

I have not contacted their technical support.

The process for the deployment is straightforward. It takes approximately four hours to complete.

We did the implementation of SQL Server in-house. We have eight people managing the solution. The team includes managers, technicians, and administrators.

There is a subscription that needs to be purchased to use the solution.

I would advise others this is a good Microsoft solution.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

Our use case is creating data warehouses using the SQL Server database.

The solution is deployed on-premises and on public and private clouds.

The solution has a user-friendly environment and supporting functionalities. It also has great memory and processing databases.

Other than Synapse and the other version of SQL Server, they face some problems while processing the data. For example, the one issue we face is that when we need to process the queue, it's costly with Azure and SQL Servers. We also face some memory issues with that.

I have been using this solution for more than eight years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have a different technical team that deals with issues. So we only communicate the issue to them, and they communicate with the team.

Setup is very easy, especially compared to Oracle.

Synapse is a bit costly. If I compare it with different databases, I think it's a reasonable price. If I'm talking about licensing of the Oracle, it seems that normal organizations have it and some smaller organizations can also afford it, which is a good thing.

I have also evaluated Oracle.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I always recommend SQL Server. To whoever asks me, I will say, "Just go for it." The databases are good. In terms of pricing, SQL Server is good. In terms of functionality, it gives you all the basic requirements. You can also integrate it with different applications, which is an advantage.

All of our .NET applications and some of our third-party applications require a single server database, AutoCAD, and things like that. Our custom apps are the largest estate of databases.

In our production environments, we're on version 17. I've worked with the most recent version but not in a production environment. 

I like the availability group functionality. We are setting up more clusters using availability groups. The enterprise licensing or Software Assurance makes it a little bit cheaper as well. It is nice to have that read-only copy for reporting and everything else.

They've been adding a lot of great functionality such as columnstore indexes to improve the way indexes are rebuilt and to be able to do online index rebuilds. All those are great features.

On the SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) side, I have noticed more bugs in terms of being able to connect to our SQL servers. I can't tell how many times my recent server list got dropped or cleaned out. It is a pain, and it would be nice to have that recent connect list when you connect in. For whatever reason, once in a while, I get a hard error, and it'll close. When I go back in, everything is cleared out. It is annoying when you are working with more than a hundred database instances.

I have been working with this solution for probably 18 years.

Everything is pretty much scripted out, so it is pretty straightforward for us. 

They've been adding a lot of great functionality, and hopefully, they continue down that path. We don't use a lot of the more advanced features at this point, but for what we're doing right now, it's working really great with availability groups and other features. 

Its usability has gotten a lot better after version 14. There were a lot of great updates after version 14 for SQL or query performance with the engine.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We primarily use the solution mainly for databases on all types of applications.

SQL is the all around leading Database server

The solution is very stable. 

The scalability of the product is great.

We'd like the deployment process to be better in the future. 

The licensing is pretty expensive.

I've been using the solution for 20 years at this point. It's been two decades. We've used it for a while now.

The solution is stable and the performance is great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

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

We have 900 to 1,000 people using it currently.

I'm more on the architecture side and therefore do not directly deal with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

We also use Oracle. We've used it for over a decade already.

The deployment could be easier.

While the deployment only takes about 15 minutes, you have to follow up with a lot of configuration.

We handled the implementation ourselves. We did not enlist the assistance of any integrators or consultants. It was all handled in-house.

We're paying too much for licensing at this time. They need to work on the pricing. They could be cheaper, however, it's also difficult to run the licenses in the right way.

We pay licensing fees on a yearly basis. 

We're a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with SQL. 

While everything is currently on-premises, we're making moves to shift to the cloud. 

We're using the 2019 and 2016 versions of the product.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. In general, we've been quite happy with its capabilities.

This solution is part of the ERP that we have for application. We use it for many purposes, such as POS in-store cash registers for enterprise companies.

SQL Server provides good performance. Most of the SQL solutions can be integrated and this solution is no different, you are able to link other databases. For example, we have Oracle running a Postgres Server and it is linked. It follows the ISO standard when it comes to commands, it works well.

They could improve by adding the SQL format.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately eight years.

The solution is stable, I have not had any issue using it.

The scalability is very good.

We have approximately 500 users using the POS.

I have previously used IBM Informix, PostgresSQL, and Oracle Databases.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately 30 minutes. If you were to add more features the installation could take longer. For example, there are many features such as table partitioning allowing you to do queries faster, transferring data from one table to another, and performing quicker backups.

We did the implementation ourselves. We have a team that does the maintenance for Windows Servers, Linux desktops, and Linux Servers.

There is a license required for servers and for the POS we use the free version. The free version allows you to have tables and a total database size of approximately 10 GB, which is enough for our requirements.

This is an excellent solution when it comes to databases. I would recommend it to others.

I rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for studying data and statistics. We have some services that we are monitoring and keeping records and doing reports, and we use it for that.

The solution is quite stable.

The solution has the capability of scaling.

The performance is good. 

It's very easy to use.

The solution was delivered to us, and we really don't interface with the solution directly. I can't speak to any features that are missing.

The only people that can use it directly are developers. It's not for everyday users.

The pricing in general could be better.

We've used the solution for about five years or so. It's been a while.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. We do not deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale, however, it's dependant on the hardware. It's not limitless.

There are about ten users using the solution at this time.

We do have plans to increase usage in the future.

We don't interface with Microsoft support. We always go to the vendor that performed the integration for us.

We did not implement the solution. We had it delivered to us.

I've done an installation in the past, however, not at this company. It's straightforward. It's simple due to the fact that it's going to be installed on the Microsoft operating system, not like MySQL that's used on a Linux server.

Deployment may take about 15 minutes or so.

We have a technical team of about eight people that can handle maintenance as necessary.

We had an integrator deliver the solution to us, as we are not ourselves developers.

I don't have any details on the licensing in terms of any details or costs. It's not an aspect of the solution I directly deal with.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have any business relationship with the company.

We use the express edition of the solution.

It was delivered as part of a solution. We are not developers. It was a turnkey solution delivered to us by an integrator, and we are doing some maintenance, however, we are not developing the content of the database. It was used as part of our services for maybe five years or more.

The database is on the back end. We are using it with our applications at the front end that we are interfacing with. In terms of the SQL server, we don't go and use it directly. We use it through the application. There's an application that is providing a user interface for us, and we work on that user interface. We don't work on the native interface of the SQL server.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I've heard that Oracle is better.

I'd recommend this solution to other companies.