SQL Server Reviews

I handle the banking software. We have another software called City Life, a life insurance package. We develop those packages - the banking package and the life insurance package. We have almost 70 - 80% of the market share in our country. I also use and love Delphi. We develop in that language. The backend is SQL Server at this moment and we are researching how we can move from SQL Server to some other open source solutions.

The only problem with this product is that it doesn't have an open source version.

Our customers are willing to pay less. For SQL server they have to buy it, they have to purchase the license. So, if we can get some free open source, like Firebird, InterBase, Firebase, or something like MySQL and also PostgreSQL, whichever one is suitable for us, we'd like to pick one.

Additionally, in some cases it is quite difficult, like the lack of ease of the replication and other issues. They have to improve on that. They do not have features like "always on," which is complicated.

One feature which we don't like is that they are providing CLR, and CLR can only be written in dot net, C sharp. But actually it should be open for all languages to write CLR so that we can hide our code. The next thing is that the tangent PSQ is encryptable but it is decryptable, as well. From the developer's point of view, all procedures are exposed.

I have been using SQL Server for a long time, since version 6.5.

We are still using it, but everybody is going towards open source, that's why we would like to go for open source as well. 

SQL Server is quite stable. And now we are using the Lattice 2017 version. But the most important thing is that the license cost is quite expensive.

We solve issues on our own. If we need something we Google it and find it. There is a good communication base and a community where we can get responses, replies, and some blog posts.

I'm looking at Firebird. My concentration is Firebird. I understood and researched that Firebird is the best one because it is quite robust, it has already matured, and the developer's community is quite high and stable. I'm just researching whether it can handle the huge amount of database as it did in Microsoft SQL server.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give SQL Server an eight out of 10.

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 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 are currently developing our own business application and we are using SQL Server as the database. We deploy it as a .NET application and the webserver is IIS. The SQL is a three-node clustered system.

The most valuable feature is the system architecture.

The number of concurrent users is too limited and other databases are better than SQL in this regard.

There are limitations with load balancing.

We would like to see support for in-memory processing.

We have been using SQL Server for more than seven years.

SQL Server is a stable product.

We are the largest micro-credit finance company with more than thirty companies internally. We have 25,000 employees using the business application and SQL does not scale to our requirements.

I think that Oracle is better suited to smaller applications.

The supporting sites are good.

I have also worked with SAP HANA.

Setting up the database clustering is too complex.

Our current deployment has been ongoing for three years and it is not yet complete because our application is still being developed.

Our in-house team is handling the deployment.

We are currently searching for other products to replace this one with.

My advice for anybody who is considering SQL Server is that it works well for small applications. However, large business applications that use a content delivery network or geographical location, it is not suitable for.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

There was an online system in which we had about 2500 requests to the DB per second. Every request had a completion window of one second to process and retrieve data. Before my arrival, the numbers were 1000 requests per second and two, and sometimes, three to five seconds spent per request.

After switching to SQL Server, and AlwaysOn, and Snapshot, and tinkering, and configuring and tinkering, the handling capacity we measured increased to about 5000 requests per second, while the time decreased to 0.5 seconds per request.

The AlwaysOn high-availability feature is the most valuable feature of SQL Server to us. This is because of the relative ease of the configuration, rather than configuring for OLTP-OLAP distinction.

As a software developer, it can be hard to do something in Oracle that is SQL Server specific, and vice-versa, sometimes.

Improvements must not be stopped and must not end. When business needs arrive, then the improvements follow. For example, 15-20 years ago, MySQL did not have built-in Stored Procedure support; there was no business need for MySQL to have stored procedures built-in.

One stability issue I encountered was the deadlocking between calls to the same resources (tables, etc.). That was solved by row versioning. (We were shooting ourselves in the feet).

No scalability issues.

I have never had the need to reach out to the vendor.

Yes I did use another solution previously. The switch was mainly for the performance. Secondly, it was for the technology compatibility.

It was very straightforward. There was no complexity which I couldn’t handle.

I’m not a "product" fan. I try to use "the" product which will comply smoothly with the software I’m working on.

I’ve been working on Microsoft SQL Server since 2005, and currently I’m using SQL Server 2014 in my development environment and SQL Server 2012 in the production environment.

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.

SQL Server can be useful for a lot of businesses and enterprise solutions. SQL Server is very powerful and useful when you need to store, retrieve, process, and analyze a large amount of data. In my organization, almost everyone uses SQL Server. That's about 10 people using it.

SQL Server's Management Studio is very user-friendly. I like their database and the additional features it offers. It's also easy to integrate SQL Server with things like CLR, PowerShell, and command shell

I would like to see SQL Server add the ability to write to multiple sites or support replication between multiple sites at the transaction level. If we can have data available on multiple sites as quickly as possible, that would be a great feature.

I've been using SQL Server for around 10 years. I have 30 years of experience in the IT industry. In that time, I have worked on different kinds of databases, such as Oracle. Before that, I worked on FoxPro. I have also worked with PostgreSQL.

It's absolutely scalable. 

Our clients are the end-users of the SQL Server applications, and we do all the development and maintenance for them. So anything related to support, our clients take care of it.

I work on the development and performance-tuning side, so I don't do the installation but my guess would be that it is pretty straightforward by now. 

I am not aware of the cost because our clients take care of them, but I think there are enterprise licenses. If you go for Azure Cloud databases, then you just can pay as you go.

SQL Server is my favorite database. Because I've been working on it for so many years, I like it. I have only good things to say about it. I would rate SQL Server nine out of 10.

We use the solution for nearly all of the services we provide that utilize Windows Server. We use it to provide continuous service and in respects of our mail server. 

We have found the feature that allows us to publish web applications to be valuable. 

We have 20 servers and we use disparate ones for different applications, such as Kaspersky Anti-Virus Server and Windows SharePoint in respects of the surveillance system. 

The solution should be more secure and stable and have better performance, particularly as concerns the endpoint operating systems. I would like to have a better operating system that links the CPU and the RAM efficiently.

For the majority of our servers we have not used other operating systems, although there are certain features or requirements that necessitated their use, such as Red Hat. This was rare. Mostly, we used Windows OS. 

As for the performance issue, we have recently encountered situations in which everything would fail in spite of the CPU and memory being 100 percent operable. 

We have been using SQL Server for 12 or 13 years.

As we have faced problems with the solution in both the past and present, I feel it could be more stable. 

The solution seems scalable to me. 

We have not had experience with technical support and have handled this independently whenever we encountered problems. 

When it comes to the installation of the operating system, we have found it to be easy and user-friendly. 

Our greatest praise for the solution we reserve for its ease of installation and usage. These provide definite advantages. Perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that we have always made use of the solution for nearly every relevant company in South Africa.

While I cannot recall exactly how long the installation lasted, I did recently install endpoint Windows 10 Operating System and this took an hour and a half. 

We were able to handle the installation on our own, as we are well versed in this process when it comes to Windows OS.

On an individual basis, we solely make use of Windows OS. There are between 300 and 400 people in our organization who do so. 

Generally speaking, we do not make use of a technical team for deployment and maintenance purposes and do so internally. There are a maximum of seven or eight people in our organization who are responsible for this. We are talking about technical people who are responsible for the direct installation and configuration of Windows OS and they do not include managers. 

I believe the licensing to be on an annual basis. In 2019 we purchased a three year license. 

We did not evaluate other other options before going with the solution. 

I rate SQL Server as a seven out of ten.