SQL Server Reviews

We use this Relational Database Management System for Line of Business systems, including Enterprise Resource Planning, Data Warehouse, Web Applications, and Business Intelligence.

Solutions are procured, built, and enhanced in the REIT industry, FMCG ERP, distribution and warehousing, manufacturing systems, knowledge workers such as workflow and portals, web applications, custom developments areas, enterprise reporting and analytics for internal reporting, and decision support systems.

Integration solutions provide robust integration to various and disparate third-party systems.

This is a simple to deploy, own, and manage RDMS.

Skills and support for this product are widely available. The security and vulnerability management are well-managed through the vendor. Lifecycles are greatly improved in recent releases, to make upgrades easier.

A license buys enterprise-grade data integration, reporting, and analytical capabilities as well.

It has broad adoption and support for integration with leading software brands such as SAP and Sage.

Data availability and security is well taken care of for the enterprise and is the backbone of first-class business continuity plans.

Support and adoption are important because skills are available to lower the total cost of ownership. 

High availability, read-only copy synchronization, and data integrity mean that it is relatively easy to ensure data security, availability, and integrity. Lower tier SKUs offer high-end features.

Data integration is available, as SSIS offers a flexible data integration platform with rich features including .NET integration for web-service integration, or bus architectures.

SSAS analytical DBs are powerful yet easy to develop and own.

SSRS offers enterprise reporting that is reasonably user-friendly.

It is easy to deploy cloud/on-premises hybrid implementations with a familiar and consistent toolset.

It is costly to implement high throughput systems, beyond millions of transactions per second. The hardware to run the systems, especially for high availability deployments is expensive, i.e. more resources to run.

Linux-based editions are not yet proven to be on par with Windows deployments.

Row-level security is obscure to implement.

Running cloud offerings are expensive; for example, the Instance as a Service offering.

Third-party tooling is required to manage code version control.

Managing BLOB data is not equally simple to implement.

The engine that implements query plans was updated in the 2012/2014 refresh that could necessitate a costly rewrite of queries.

I have been working with SQL Server for 21 years.

I have a very high opinion of the stability of the solution. It is one of the most mature products available.

Best practice setup is important to consider but when implemented correctly, it just runs.

The vendor is excellent and their relationship with Microsoft has proven invaluable. The 2008 > 2012 and 2012 > 2014 upgrades had specific issues that made them costly. Recent upgrades have been relatively painless.

We have tried using different technologies, depending on the use case. This is not the best tool for document-oriented or unstructured data.

It is relatively simple to run. We spent a good amount of time preparing the requirements for a high-availability cluster that paved the way for a reasonably straightforward implementation.

We had assistance from our vendor. We consider our vendor nimble and best in class. They contributed greatly to the stable running of the platform.

It is a positive ROI, especially in that we leverage many of the features in the offering.

With recent releases, the Standard Edition (cheaper) SKU has some of the earlier version Enterprise features. SQL Express has some limitations.

The Azure Platform as a Service option remains relatively expensive, at least in South Africa, compared to on-premises, but it is worth exploring.

Some baseline comparisons were made around 2012 to Oracle, with MS SQL Server coming out to have a lower total cost of ownership.

It is a first-class enterprise RDBMS and will continue to enjoy favourable sentiment from developers and DBAs.

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.

Performance improvements, optimizer enhancements. Most of our clients have high demands for performance, and this version of SQL Server delivers what we need.

We are a professional services company, so we use SQL Server to help our clients achieve their goals. Our clients use SQL Server 2016 for their most demanding mission critical systems, for data warehouses, and big data solutions.

The Query Store is a good start, but I expect the query processor to be a lot smarter and to use machine learning in order to improve and adjust execution plans automatically.

One year.

Since we are working with a lot of clients on many edge cases, we encounter bugs and stability issues once in a while, but these are rare.

If you know how to work with the product and leverage its various features and possibilities, then you can achieve great scalability.

Microsoft offers several levels of technical support, which is OK, but not too good. But there is a wonderful community with lots of resources on the internet, so most issues can be solved without contacting Microsoft support.

No, I have been using SQL Server for the past 20 years.

The initial setup is very clear and friendly. It has improved from the previous version.

Unfortunately, SQL Server licensing is a very complex topic. I advise people to consult with a licensing expert.

No.

Download the Developer Edition for free, install it on your personal computer (it’s very easy), and start exploring. If you need help with something, just search for it on the internet, and you’ll find a wealth of resources about everything you need.

The ability to organize and structure our data in order to extract and provide it to various products and systems within our organization. It is widely used and has great online support from many third-party sites.

We're able to easily upscale previous systems to provide an efficient interface for our internal clients to do their jobs effectively.

Learning SQL could be easier. Some inbuilt tools to enable faster query writing would be very useful.

I have used various versions for at least 25 years, on and off.

No, none.

When upsizing, some tools do not do a very good job of scaling efficiently and lots of after tweaks need to be made.

From Microsoft -- poor/very expensive, but there are many other helpful resources out there.

Used MS Access, but data ports became too large for it to support, so we needed a product to take us to the next level as our data ports grew.

A lot of initial reading was required to carefully manage the process of setting everything up correctly.

Not my area.

No, others evaluated.

Do your homework first and be prepared for a tough learning curve.

• Business intelligence platform
• Analysis services (multidimensional and tabular)
• Relational database features
• Data extraction and transformation (integration services)

It provides the ability to create an end-to-end automated BI platform through data management and provisioning, transformation and publication.

Data platform development process improvement: Integrating the features of Visual Studio Team Foundation Server data projects for SQL Server development. Allows for smooth operation between development environments in conjunction with an agile process to release database changes.

Hosting multidimensional OLAP instances in conjunction with Tabular, rather than the either/or installation.

OLAP multidimensional ongoing maintenance - automated partitioning or interface for streamlining the mechanism within the cube and data layers.

Integration Services: There is a great deal of room for improvement here in that thepackages are the least extensible part of the platform. Even with the feature ofplatform variables, since these are not easily managed and deployed. Our testers have had a great deal of difficulty swapping environments, particularly where the connection information changes (underlying database name, for example). Changing servers with identical database names is less problematic.

I've used it since its release in 2012 until now.

No issues encountered.

There were some avoidable issues, primarily due to a lack of scaling in our own design.

There were some avoidable issues, primarily due to a lack of scaling in our own design.

Online information for SQL Server is extensive.

I did not have the need to contact technical support for any reason.

Open Source database and OLAP solution was found to lack stability, and required the installation of many moving parts in order to have a complete stack. These services don't always work together well, and the various online communities would frequently blame the other for issues.

It's straightforward to install a new instance, but more complex if new features are added to an existing instance. Deployment of SQL code is efficient through Visual Studio database project development methodologies.

I have used both in-house, and vendor teams for implementation, both with very high levels of expertise into different aspects of database development.

It's very high as the data platform is business-critical.

I don’t concentrate on this issue, but rather the necessary features and the version required.

No other oprions were evaluated.

Make sure that you have an experienced database administrator to implement the infrastructure of the solution.

It is for supporting our custom applications. We have a number of custom applications that we use that have SQL embedded.

I am using the version before the latest one.

Its usability is very good. Its performance is satisfactory.

Their support could be better. There should be more visibility on the progress of the ticket, and their last line of support should be more knowledgeable. Other than that, we have nothing to complain about.

I have been using this solution for seven to eight years.

Their support could be better. Sometimes, you don't have much visibility of how your service request is progressing. There should be more visibility, and the last line of support should be more knowledgeable.

It was straightforward. It took two to three hours.

We have internal staff for its implementation. We have a team of about three or four people who are well-versed with SQL Server, and we have 30 to 40 users who use this solution.

You need to pay for the license. It most probably has per-core licensing.

I would recommend this solution to others. We are satisfied with the product in general. Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

We are using SQL Server for our financial application package.

One of the best features of SQL Server is the efficient retrieval of information.

We want to move to Azure, and the solution could be made better to make the process easier for the migration from on-premise to the cloud.

I have used SQL Server for approximately seven years.

SQL Server is stable. However, Microsoft products have a tendency to crash. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of stability.

The scalability of SQL Server is good.

The solution is straightforward to install.

The price of SQL Server could be better in the African market. The licensing model needs to be improved, it is confusing.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

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.