SQL Server Reviews

We use SQL Server to store applications. The SQL Server manages various functions, such as digital innovation projects, document storage, handling login credentials, and maintaining authentication and authorization through the database.

Unlike MySQL, SQL Server is advantageous because it allows the execution of stored procedures and commands. It's easy to understand, run, and manage. Also, Microsoft frequently updates SQL Server, quickly resolving issues in new versions.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

My team has five users. 

The tool's deployment is easy. 

SQL Server offers three versions. You can get a free trial for 30 days. 

The solution is easy to understand if you know basic queries. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

SQL Server is very useful in managing databases for various applications. It is easy to use, making it accessible even for those with limited skills. SQL is a preferred choice for handling limited data. Additionally, Microsoft provides excellent support for SQL Server.

We are using in-house ERP. Currently, we are using SQL for different projects, like surveys and documentation. The data are stored in SQL, which is our main database.

SQL Server is very easy to use. A person with limited skill also can handle the software easily. The retrieving time of the data is very fast. You don't require any higher configuration machine for that. If you have very limited resources, you can easily manage.

There is a limitation in the SQL. There are around 4GB restrictions, which Microsoft needs to work on.

If your data volume is higher, your server performance may suffer. Microsoft needs to focus on improving stability in such scenarios.

If the dataset is limited, the performance is good. If it involves bulk data, then the speed is slow.

The number of users impacts the solution’s scalability.

100-500 users are using this solution.

Customer support is fast and knowledgeable. Whenever we raise the ticket, they reply within two hours.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is not lengthy. It's a simple flow chart. There is no complexity in the application. It will take half an hour to deploy if you have the right hardware resources.

The first step is gathering the developers’ prerequisites, which depend on the application. We consider the projected data volume for the last ten years, which informs our capacity planning. Based on that, we recommend virtualization.

We have two kinds of licenses for SQL Server: perpetual and subscription-based. We already have the perpetual license. The subscription-based license is renewed every year. The perpetual license was obtained previously, while the subscription-based license is a newer solution we've deployed. We have both perpetual and subscription-based licenses. Perpetual license lacks support.

SQL Server is very secure in terms of login and data protection. Security largely depends on the programmer’s implementation. When data is inputted, it is encrypted to prevent unauthorized access. So, laypeople cannot understand the content of the data.

If your organization needs secure data management or is considering migrating your systems to a virtualization platform, I strongly recommend utilizing Microsoft products. They are user-friendly and require no specialized skill level.

Microsoft has developed the software to be used for any major and smaller applications. Therefore, its integration is very good in terms of the specifications provided.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We extracted data from SAP and stored it in SQL Server. We created a connection between the Data Services Server and the SQL Server. If anything went wrong, there were SQL Server experts who took care of everything. So, we extracted data from our ERP system and stored it in SQL Server.

Whenever we had to restore the data, it was not as difficult as restoring the database to any other RDBMS. The restoration of data is very easy compared to any other database. The solution is very intuitive and easy to use. It is one of the best relational database systems in the market. The restore and backup strategy was not complicated. The ease of use was excellent compared to any other databases.

The performance degrades when the data is huge. It also degrades when there is a flux of data.

I used the solution for four to five years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a seven out of ten.

The tool is pretty scalable. We had 100 users in our organization. We can scale the tool vertically and horizontally.

SQL Server is the best database when the data is not huge or when we know that the data is coming in at a specific rate. I rate the integration of the product with SAP BusinessObjects Data Services nine out of ten. It is easy. We did not come across any issues or delays. Every organization uses Microsoft. SQL Server is one of the oldest RDBMSs on the market. It is easy to use and intuitive. A lot of people know about it. The ease of use is greater than any other server in the market. Overall, I rate the solution an eight and a half out of ten.

Our main use cases involve using the tool for the database engine. We have a small team in our environment that develops and uses this database for data storage. The data collected by our application is stored in this database.

We use SQL Server for various data management scenarios. It allows us to query data, some of which spans over twenty years. We generate reports and perform analyses using this tool. It also comes with backup and recovery tools, which are essential features of the database engine.

Regarding integration, the solution works well for different courses without any issues. However, if we want to add machine learning and AI capabilities for business analytics, that's an area where improvements could be made.

As for security features, I believe additional security enforcement is needed. You have to implement extra measures on top of what's already there. We understand that the built-in security isn't as robust as expected, so additional solutions are necessary to enhance security.

I have been using the product for 16 years. 

Regarding performance and scalability, we've been using this tool with over 20 years of data. Despite the large amount of data, it's still efficient and effective. We can query the data and perform various tasks without problems, as it serves as our main repository. For our specific use case, it's very effective in decision-making. Depending on their requirements, other organizations might choose different solutions like SQL, Oracle, Postgres, or MongoDB. They can use whatever solution fits their use case best, but this one works very well for us. The solution is stable. 

The solution is globally well-known. It's scalable and has good integrability. You can interface with it using different APIs; some solutions can connect directly with the engine. So, from that perspective, we don't face any issues.

The tool has vendor and partner support. However, we support ourselves. 

SQL Server's deployment is easy. 

We did the deployment in-house. 

The tool is very profitable for us. We initially acquired this solution for development purposes. We have small teams that develop applications using SQL Server as the back-end database engine.

I rate the overall product a ten out of ten since it meets our requirements. Advice for others considering this solution depends on their specific requirements. They must consider whether they need Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle Database, SAP Database engine, or something else. Their particular needs will determine the best choice. In general, though, I would recommend Microsoft SQL Server. Anyone can acquire and use it based on their requirements. However, as I mentioned earlier, some security and performance improvements may be needed.

We use the tool to store and retrieve application data. It allows for storage via multiple threads and separates threads.

I find query optimization to be highly valuable for data management. Additionally, drag-and-drop query creation greatly facilitates data management tasks.

The solution's stability can be improved. 

I can't provide a definitive comment on stability, but I'd lean towards the positive side and rate it around a seven out of ten. I've encountered more efficient and faster databases that deserve a higher rating. Therefore, I'm hesitant to rate SQL Server a nine out of ten for stability.

The number of users depends on the primary master database, which handles the core data. The solution typically serves around two million users interacting with the primary master database. In terms of deployment and maintenance, not much is needed. I'm quite familiar with databases, so that I can handle it myself. Even without guides, setting up and maintaining the system is manageable.

The deployment process was fairly simple, especially with SQL Server and other modern products. The interfaces are easy to understand, and the configuration is straightforward. Typically, you need to configure a node endpoint for the JDBC driver if you're connecting from a client.

Currently, we don't heavily rely on SQL Server for our projects. Most applications are developed for evaluation or quick setup and checking methods. For production-grade deployments, we primarily use PostgreSQL.

The database architecture plays a crucial role in data-heavy applications. I've worked with databases, particularly in telecom, requiring extremely real-time operations like quick authentication and seamless data transfer for calls. These use cases demand quick responsiveness and scalability, especially during high-traffic events like sports matches. Scaling up certain database nodes becomes essential to handle the increased volume of data.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.I haven't personally used the .NET framework, but it seems to be more elaborate compared to Java or Python.

There are no specific use cases attached to the solution. From an academic point of view, I make the tool available to the students for some training or tests. I also used it to compare the functionalities of Oracle Data Integrators with other data integration systems.

I can't comment on the valuable features of the product right now since I recently downloaded some whitepaper and manuals. I downloaded the documentation related to the tool, but I haven't used much of the system. I know that SQL Server is a good system, based on a report I read on the Gartner website.

The interface of the tool has certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using SQL Server for ten to twenty years.

It is a stable solution.

I haven't tested the system for scalability. I use it for simple tasks.

As per our company's agreement with Microsoft, some of the software from Microsoft 10 was included in SQL Server when there were about 1,000 students attending database classes using it.

The product's initial setup phase was simple.

There were no specific projects for which I used the tool. I conduct classes related to data integration. I need to use some products attached to the data integration area having a Python framework. I wanted to compare the tool with some commercial tools such as Oracle Data Integrator.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

SQL Servers and Power BI Report Servers can integrate well.

I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.

Our correlation and relational databases are on Microsoft SQL Server.

The company uses two platforms: MySQL and Microsoft SQL Server. Some applications are on MySQL, and some applications are SQL Server. 

I have pretty much worked all my life in Microsoft SQL Server.

I am in the process of creating a data strategy to consolidate multiple siloed data centers. Once my plan is finalized and approved, then we are going to execute it on the Microsoft platform.

• Performance-wise, it is an excellent tool.
• It is a Microsoft product, so there's a lot of support. 
• It's not a new tool; it has been around for a while. 
• It is one of the top five relational databases in the market. 
• It is very user-friendly.
• There are a lot of resources available for it.

I would like to see native plugins built for other platforms versus having to buy third-party plugins to tap into S3 buckets and AWS Cloud. Right now, it does not have those built-in plugins.

I know that they are building SQL Server for the Unix environment, which is in the beta version, and not out yet. This has been a long time wish for a lot of people. Once that is out, we'll be able to tell how diversified they have become in regards to other platforms.

It hasn't 100 percent on scalability and third-party plugins.

It is one of the most stable relational databases out there.

With the new versions and Azure, which is in the cloud, these do accommodate scalability. Until the 2014 version, the scalability wasn't there, but from the 2016 version and above, I think they have taken all these scalability features into consideration.

I have not used technical support for Microsoft with my current company. I have used them in the past. It depends on the tier of support that was purchased by the company as to the level of support that you receive.

Our company has probably been using this solution since it was released.

It is expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Since we are a cloud-based company, there is AWS pricing on top of the SQL Server pricing. The Enterprise Edition can typically sell from around $1000 dollars a month, which is not cheap. Then, there is an additional one-time Windows cost, based on the code, which can go anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 for the license.

From my perspective, the two vendors for this are Microsoft and Amazon (AWS).

They are working on making it better with every release, compared to Oracle Db2 and IBM.

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. It's not cheaper any more, like it used to be, but if you can afford it, then it's the best.

When I select a vendor, from a tool perspective, I make sure that they have full support available, have been in the market for awhile, and the solution/application is stable.

From an open source perspective, like MySQL, Aurora, and MongoDB, they have done a great job in making a robust database container.

I use the solution in my company for .NET programs and as a database.

The solution's most valuable part revolves around data management, which can be seen in its audit features and performance.

The tool needs to develop a better audit control mechanism.

Even if you have some technical agreement with Microsoft, the technical support of the solution won't help you. The support needs to be improved.

I have been using SQL Server for eight years. I am an end-user of the solution.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The scalability features of the product are simple for me to use.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around five percent of the people in my company use the tool.

I rate the technical support a five to six out of ten.

Neutral

I have worked with Microsoft Entra ID Protection for ten years. I also use Microsoft Defender.

Over the other solutions of the market, I started to use SQL Server since it is available for free and is more secure, while offering good performance. SQL Server offers good performance even over Elasticsearch, or maybe the others open-source database products.

The product's initial setup phase is very easy. On a scale of one to ten, if one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the setup phase a ten.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in a few hours.

My company's in-house team carried out the product's deployment process.

The tool is not something that helps with the cost saving part, but I can say that is a practical tool to use.

On a scale of one to ten, when one is cheap and ten is an expensive solution, I rate the product price as seven. The product is expensive.

The tool's integration capabilities are very good. We don't have any problems.

I don't have any idea about how the product can be used for AI-driven projects because we don't use AI.

I don't recommend the tool to others. I recommended free products because they are tools that offer high performance.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.