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 are using this solution as a database. The main purpose is as an SQL Server.

Our backend and core systems are using Microsoft SQL Server. We have no complaints from anyone who is using it.

We have nothing that we can compare it with.

It's much more friendly in comparison with Oracle.

We are using the standard features. I don't see any areas that can be simplified with the standard functionalities. We don't use any special extended features.

From my point of view, using SQL Server 2017 and 2019 is very good. I haven't experienced any issues or been in a situation where I was struggling with problems for which I didn't have access to proper documentation or proper functions.

I have been using SQL Server for eight years.

After eight years in our company, we have not had any issues with SQL Server from a stability point of view.

We are a small company. We don't have any issues with this and we are fully virtualized. If we need to, we can extend the amount of CPUs as we want.

Our core system is being used by 50 users, but they are not accessing the SQL Server. We have approximately 10 users in our company who are using the SQL Server.

I have never used technical support.

I am using Avamar and Data Domain. I have been using Data Domain for four or five years. It was used as the data storage for the backup solution in our sister company.

I worked with Oracle in the previous company. Microsoft SQL Server is better.

We have also used Software Center, Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange, and almost everything that is Microsoft-based.

It was installed by an outsourcing company. It is another sister company.

It's cheaper than Oracle.

I am fine with the pricing, but pricing is an area that can always be improved.

We are Microsoft D-level partners. Pricing is not an issue for us, because of the outreach of our mother company.

We are a Microsoft-based company.

I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We are using SQL server for both transactional and analytical purposes, and for storing the data.

We are familiar with Microsoft products and bringing another Microsoft product was a very easy transition.

The most valuable features are ease of use and the integration with Single Sign On (SSO), as well as with other Microsoft products.

The performance needs some improvement and it needs more features integrated into it.

Technical support could be better. 

Scalability could be less costly.

One of the conflicts with Microsoft is if you have an enterprise relationship, you have to deal with a third-party offering Microsoft solutions.

In the 2016 version, they don't have support for Python. It may be included with the 2019 version but if they don't, I would like to see support for Python implemented.

The company has been using this solution for approximately 20 years. I was in contracting and now have been using it for approximately five years.

SQL Server is pretty stable.

There is a concern with the scalability because it's an on-premise technology. 

Scaling always comes with more costs and also the licensing cost increase, which makes it complex, and more difficult.

We have backend developers, data engineers, data scientists, and analysts using this solution.

Most of the time, technical support is not straightforward and it goes to a third party.

I wouldn't say that it is great, but okay.

Previously, we had not used any other solutions. We have been a Microsoft shop from the beginning.

The initial setup was not easy but not complex. Rather, it was somewhere in between.

We did not use an integrator or reseller to deploy this solution.

Pricing is reasonable for small organizations, but the scaling increases the price.

For larger organizations that would be using enterprise solutions, it contains some hidden costs.

It's suited for small organizations, but if someone from a larger organization is looking for this, they might have some problems implementing enterprise-wide solutions. This is because of the integrations, as there would be hidden costs to it.

The best parts of this solution are the costs and that it is easy to use, but the cons would be with implementing an enterprise-wide solution. There are many hidden factors, such as costs. Also, you have to put more effort into integrating with other solutions across the enterprise.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We are an independent software vendor and users of this product. I'm a company founder. 

The most valuable feature for me is that the database engine is always on.

The solution is lacking a compound index for comparing values as you find in PostgreSQL. SQL Server doesn't support that feature so we need to build binary indexes to be able to compare those compound values. I'd also like to see AI capabilities. Oracle has a cloud solution which maintains its own indexes. If you buy a service from Oracle's cloud system, it keeps track of the queries that you have made to the database and it automatically implements its own indexes. It's such a good optimized database and I'd like to see an SQL Server that maintains its own indexes with AI capability. 

I have an issue with memory support: If you create a table and a third procedure followed by an additional procedure using that third procedure, and then wish to alter the original table with the two dependent objects, you have to drop those third procedures and alter the table and recreate dependencies. Those dependencies make it impossible to work in an online environment. If there's a problem, for example, in your implementation and you have to modify a production system, for example, it can't be done. SQL Server generates DLL files in this instance and you can't change DLLs of a running program. It should be easy for them to solve. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

I have the issue of memory support but the solution is stable. 

For Turkey, the licensing costs are too high. Previously, independent software vendors like us would buy the license from Microsoft and resell to our customers.
For vendors it was half the retail price, but that's no longer possible. Sometimes enterprise companies buying in bulk can get licenses at a better price, but we don't have that and it's impractical for us to sell this solution. 

The solution doesn't have too many surprises and is easy to understand. It's all dependent on the architecture and implementation. Newer products use code-first solutions and I'm not sure people will continue to go down the SQL path. If I were starting my project now, I would have chosen another database. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

While I don't like SQL Server so much, the selection was for clients so we needed to utilize it. Of course, one thing is that as great with this and other Microsoft products is that it's quite well documented and there are also light versions available. If you need to do something, you can also try it somehow on your own computer and so on. 

If I'm helping a client to define what they need to have or what they need to do in a public sector procurement process quite often we cannot fix the database as it would be limiting the competition. That's why we never rule out the SQL Server; it should be included as an option at this level.

The solution is stable. 

I haven't had issues with sizing or scaling.

If it would be more powerful it would be pretty nice. The performance is not always the best. 

Whenever we were setting up the databases, there were some character problems that did not exist on some of the other solutions. However, the exact issues are hard to recall and list. I prefer Linux solutions. That said, when we began the previous project, Microsoft SQL Server was not available for Linux platforms yet.

Nowadays, it's my understanding that there are different versions. I haven't been checking if the current versions are supporting Transact-SQL and stuff like that. I remember that when we had the first Linux-based SQL Servers were introduced, they were, of course, a bit limited from the feature point of view. Whenever it is Unix or Linux or whatever platform, it's easier to manage them and to handle them whenever you are doing remote work. 

I'm not so big fan of the Microsoft platforms as a server. However, whenever it's needed then it's needed. If you are a consultant, you need to adjust your whole mindset to whatever it's needed.

I've used the solution, approximately, for several years. However, there have been gaps. There are different phases, however, I could count something like seven years where I was in an architect position in any project where this server was utilized. 

For the needs we had for the client it was sufficient. Whatever we needed to have - whether more server or more virtual server, the performance for the platform wasn't as good as I would like. I'm not entirely satisfied.

I haven't been utilizing the scale capabilities. I don't have a clear impression on that, however, for our purposes, we've never had an issue.

I've never dealt with technical support. The databases were handled by the service provider or service operator of our clients. We have a public sector client and they have their partner who is handling or is responsible for the platforms. Therefore, if we had a problem with the platform, the right bureaucratic way to go about getting a resolution is that we contact the service provider they have. They probably contact Microsoft. The process is bureaucratic.

I'm also familiar with other servers such as Oracle. While we must do as the client wants or needs, if I could choose, I would probably utilize databases like Oracle or open-source databases more often. It depends on the cases. That said, quite often I'm in a position where I cannot suggest the technology, so I use what the client requests.

We didn't pay anything for it as it was provided for our client by the provider. I cannot say about the enterprise licenses or anything. When we began the work and we needed it for our own machines, I prefer the solutions which are available, of course, as open-source or are free. And Microsoft had this express version of their database which we can utilize as well. In that sense, it is okay, however, of course, in general, I don't know.

I've been working for a client as a consultant so I'm helping them with deployments. With one client, we're using on-premises deployments. Our client has their own service provider or service operator so they have their own IT partner who is handling their databases. If I have understood it correctly, the databases were on-premises for our client, however, it's a bit complicated when you are having and dealing with large-scale public sector actors in Finland. There are plenty of kinds of players involved.

Whether or not I would recommend the solution depends. If you are utilizing some solutions where you need the Microsoft platform-based database, it's completely okay. And if you have, for example, the solutions where you have utilized Transact-SQL or whatever, it's okay. However, if you have this kind of situation where you can make your own choices freely, you have options. And if you're utilizing Java or C, et cetera, quite often the path or logic would go towards some of the databases on the Microsoft side.

There is no clear answer. Quite often when you begin to think about your solution or you think about what you are building, the database is the first thing you decide on. There are other factors too, such as a business case or if you're just building from scratch and so on and so on. I wouldn't like to say that I never would recommend it, however, if you are building everything from the scratch and you can make all the decisions, likely it is not the first option you have or I'd suggest. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We use SQL Server with Sage products.

It is used by our finance team and also human resources.

the database management tool is very easy to use and largely meets expectations

As SQL Server could not support the number of connections we desired, we were forced to go with Oracle. This is an area that needs to be improved.

for 04 Years now 

The solution could be more stable

The performance in terms of simultaneous connection must be reviewed.

We do not pay for technical support.

No

The initial setup is time-efficient and can be done independently.

There is no need for developers or managers to deploy and maintain the solution. One or two systems' administrators are sufficient for its deployment.

The deployment is on-premises. We installed the solution on a server and this on the Windows server. The user is provided an application for connecting to it.

great

The licensing involves a one-time fee.

We evaluated Oracle as an alternative.

For my part, SQL Server is aimed at small and medium-sized businesses, I would give it an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for recording transactions and information related to the reservation of a service. 

The product is very stable.

It offers very good documentation. When there are some little issues, it's always very easy to go into the documentation for troubleshooting purposes. There's just so much documentation on hand and a really great community around the product that is very helpful.

It's a very complete product.

We've found it to basically be pretty problem-free.

The integration with other products has always been quite good.

The security of the product has never given us any issues.

We're quite satisfied with the solution. There aren't any outstanding features we would like to add.

The interface could be updated to make it slightly more user-friendly.

We've been using the solution for more than ten years. It's been a while. It's been more than a decade at this point.

The solution is very stable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's excellent.

We haven't really scaled the solution all that much. At the moment, we have measured the scalability in a horizontal way. When we needed to have more installation and more capacity, we split the database into a different SQL Server instance.

In the future, we'll likely need to consider scalability more. We are also moving in the last two years, also to a different architecture from a monolithic to a more microservice architecture. Maybe the scalability can be more easily handled in the applications that are talking to each other and leaving the database out of the equation.

While end-users are hard to quantify, I can say that likely half a million users have come through our system for transactions.

In the near future, we will continue to use the solution. We might use it for the next four or five years, although it is hard to say.

We've always been able to rely on the fantastic documentation and great community around the product in order to troubleshoot problems. It's very easy to fix issues as they arise due to the public knowledge available to everyone.

We've mostly always used this solution. Last quarter, we moved a little bit to a NoSQL database. We have done a little experiment on Cassandra however, previously, it has always been on SQL Server.

We're considering moving away from the solution right now and trying something new. The owner of the company wants to experiment with other technologies and see what is out there, which is why there is talk of change. However, it's not a reflection on this product, which has been largely quite good.

The initial setup is not overly difficult. It's pretty straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

We have 12 technical people on our team that can handle the implementation.

The last version we used is 2015 if I'm not mistaken. We don't jump immediately to the latest version due to the fact that, usually, we look for stability. We make the move to the next version in case of some integration or limitation. We prefer not to move onto something that might have bugs or glitches that need to be patched. It's more secure for us that way. 

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's doing exactly what we need it to do. We've very happy with it.

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.