SQL Server Reviews

We use this solution to analyze the profitability of sales.

Within our organization, there are roughly 30 people using the analysis services solution from the Business Intelligence side.

The performance can be great. Tuning and understanding SSAS is not straightforward.

The issue is that Microsoft is not really supporting the Multi Dimensional Analysis Services feature any longer and it's looking very obsolete. We're looking at replacing it.

SSAS-MD is difficult to make changes. It's a very complicated product in general — that's the issue. It is too complicated for most. It's too difficult to change. It's too difficult!

I have been using this product for more than 10 years.

This particular product is quite stable. We've not had any particular problems. We've had problems with Microsoft Excel recently, but Analysis Services has been quite stable.

Scalability-wise, it's quite good. It's not scalable up to the big data type of thing that people are doing now. It's scalable up to a point, but it has been overtaken by newer products.

We try and avoid calling Microsoft support, generally. That's the truth. We've tried getting support for other products like Power BI — support is an issue.

They're changing their products and they're not stable enough. Analysis Services has been okay, but some of their other products, like Excel and Power BI, are not stable.

We're looking at alternative solutions because we think Microsoft's licensing costs have been expensive and multidimensional cubes have been overtaken by other technologies such as in-memory databases and products like Snowflake.

We're looking for a solution that allows us to pay by usage rather than pay by the number of users. We don't want to pay for hardware capacity that we rarely use. I'm looking at several products, including Snowflake, that bill by how much we use the product. I'm not sure if Microsoft is on board with that yet. I was also looking at Qlik — they do a commercial model that is paid by the amount of time. I think paying per usage is a rising trend at the moment.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a rating of nine. It's generally a good product.

If you're interested in using this solution, my advice is to do your research. It's a good product, but there are other products available.

One of the biggest issues that I have with Microsoft is that they change their products and don't continue to support the old product. We've got some things in Microsoft Excel that are no longer supported. They bring out a new model and they drop support for some of the older features.

We use SQL Server to process a lot of data. We are using versions and 2015 and 2018.

We like the whole product and we use most of the features.

Indexing, as well as integration, are areas of this product that need improvement.

We have been using SQL Server for approximately five years.

It's a stable solution. Stability is one of the most valuable features.

It's somewhat scalable.

We don't have any issues with technical support.

We have used SQL Server from day one, along with OpenSQL. We used them both regularly.

We don't use Oracle often but we do have a few areas where it is used.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

We have experience and did find it to be challenging.

We do multiple deployments which require three or four teams.

The cost is high and because it's an expensive product, we are in the process of moving towards open-source solutions.

We have evaluated MongoDB and are in the process of transforming ourselves.

We will continue using SQL Server for some things but not everything. Most of our applications will be migrated to MongoDB and others.

I am not in the position to recommend SQL Server to anybody. Rather, I am more in the area of quality assurance. 

I would rate this solution a seven 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.

We are using this solution for business websites.

The most valuable features are programmability and reliability.

Price could be cheaper, and access to reporting tools should be better.

I have been working with SQL Server for more than 20 years.

It's a stable product.

It has limited scalability, but it's perfectly adequate for our needs. We apply vertical scalability to it and not horizontal.

We are a very small software development company, scaling is not an issue for us.

Technical support is good.

In general, we use what is available on the web, rather than talking to people. The articles on the web are more useful.

We have no particular issue with Microsoft.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was very easy to do.

The price could be cheaper.

The marketing for dealer support and that type of environment is very contorted. It's very difficult to access, but, with the technical side of things, they are fine.

My experience is limited, but compared with Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server is many times better and easier to program with. So, I love Microsoft. I don't like Oracle.

I would rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

We use it mostly for integration into an ERP system. We also use it for our internal development of products.

We have many users, between 50 and 100 using the SQL Server product.

We have been using SQL Server from the start, so it's a stable product.

I think a web console for the management studio, I think that would be a good thing. I think also on load balancing. I think that's something that we can use.

We've been using SQL Server for 12 years. We are currently using the latest version. It is deployed on-premise and cloud.

The product is stable.

The product is scalable.

Right now we don't get much technical support from Microsoft. I think for all issues we encounter, we do the solutions by ourselves. I think if there should be some avenue for us to raise some issues that we are encountering, so maybe that would be something that's good for us as well. It is not easy to contact Microsoft support for this product.

Setup required two engineers to deploy it. It was pretty straightforward and took one to two days.

We didn't have any licensing costs for SQL Server.

I would recommend this product to others and give it an 8 out of 10.

Implementing solutions for controllers and project managers on their financial data for 10 years, and now using the Power BI Microsoft solution.

Implementing a unified, reliable database is one of the main improvements of departments whose business is to make decisions according their aggregated data. SQL Server, with the services it offers, has the full capability to manage this goal.

SSAS is the most interesting feature to organize the data and let the users play with it.

SSIS is also very powerful, but not always user-friendly. It requires you to build a solution around SSIS.

The reporting services of the solution (SSRS and now Power BI) are the less valuable items of the SQL Server suite. 

The solution is used primarily for medium companies in vertical accounting applications. We use the solution as a good general-purpose database.

I value the ability it gives me to test on small machines and easily scale up to larger devices for live applications.

When we run into problems, it's usually during installation, and finding answers to the problem has been a nightmare because the documentation is terrible.

Likewise, I find the business reporting rather poor, and the solution doesn't work well as a data warehouse product. When I tried to use it as one, I did not find it very satisfactory.

I've used SQL Server for about 20 years, probably. I've used a number of different versions, including 2010 and 2007.

We have never had a stability problem.

We rarely have more than a few hundred users. It's more about the person using it since we don't have heavy, continuous use.

We've never had a sensible answer from technical support.

I have generally found implementing the solution easy. But when it comes to the time we took to implement the solution, the problem's always been the application and not the database. The solution is usually easy to implement because we use standard facilities. If you need something special, you run into all sorts of trouble because SQL Server gives you an awful lot of ability to change the settings.

We've used it as a development tool, and it's very cheap as a development tool. Besides, someone else has paid for it for my use, so it's a question of whether the cost suits the end user. The solution has a good midrange price for the applications in which we've used it. Oracle's pricing would raise more eyebrows, but SQL Server's pricing has proven satisfactory for our market range.

We mainly use SQL Server because it's cost-effective for our applications. We've occasionally tried other databases for various reasons. We've used the Sybase database, but the Sybase database is very close to SQL Server. We've also tried MySQL, but that was more of an exercise in porting than anything else. However, it's not a fair comparison because we had done the development on SQL Server and then used that as a porting exercise.

The solution's generally been easy to use for the general cases we've used. The solution has been satisfactory for the sort of applications we've used.

We've been very much middle of the road in using SQL Server. We don't use specialist, and we've tried to keep to standard SQL as far as possible. We don't use the clustering facilities or try to use any of the specialist facilities. We could drop it and switch to MySQL or another database if we had to. We are using SQL Server, not for the particular services it's got, but using it as a middle-range product. We're taking advantage of the fact that it runs on all sorts of platforms, and it's a good value development product that works very easily for us. We're not using it for some of the things Microsoft clients find particularly useful for. We're not high-intensity users. For people like us, it fits in very easily.

For our purposes, SQL Server is just about ideal. It's easy to use and fit. Some of the later versions, in particular, have been easy to use. We have had installation problems on some of the later versions, and the documentation is poor. I'll rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

SQL Server is only running in China, it is not connected to our site.

We have some PCs running on Windows 7, but it is not supported.

We have no vision. We don't know when or how we have been hacked.

We require expert support with it. That is why I am looking for CRMs.

We have been using SQL Server for one year.

We use several versions such as 2008, 2012, and 2015.

SQL Server is stable.

We are not running more than 1%. Scalability needs improvement.

We have 415 users in our organization.

We have plans to increase our usage.

We have an Active Directory system, so we can install antivirus on the endpoints.

Normally, we can check with the deployment person, and our IT team will respond to the message once my team has deployed it.

I have some experience with McAfee MVISION Endpoint. We are focused on the MV1 edition. We have to blend into the EDR.

McAfee has three editions, MVISION 1, 2, and 6. We are still working with version 1.

We are also working with Endpoint Plan 1.

We have 15 servers, both Windows OS and Linux OS.

The initial setup is not complex.

We have an in-house IT team that can deploy this solution.

We have some people who have worked in IT and with endpoint software. I believe my team is capable of handling the new software, and solutions.

The licenses are purchased annually.

The license fee is very low.

I was looking into some solutions to meet our company's needs. Endpoint Protection for Business, McAfee, and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was among the solutions I researched. For endpoint security, I prefer Microsoft Defender or McAfee Endpoint Security.

Now we're comparing the cost-effectiveness, and especially the features, and giving ourselves the ability to choose the solution, truly enabling a solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.