SQL Server Reviews

The SSIS, SSRS, and DB are the most valuable features because they help in everything.

There is improvement in the performances and stability.

SSIS needs improvement.

I think that it should be easier in managing SQL packages, especially when we have multiple environments. With Kerberos Authentication, we had different issues on this and sometimes, we needed Microsoft Support too. Thus, a better and an organized SQL package review is needed.

When using HA (high availability), we experienced some stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support is the best, I would give them a 10/10 rating.

We were using a few other solutions such as MySQL, Oracle and Pervasive PSQL.

It’s okay as compared to the features that it has.

We evaluated the Oracle solution.

If you want stability, then choose the best.

We're using SQL Server for database work.

What I find most valuable in SQL Server is that it's user-friendly.

The product needs improvement in its UX design. A newer interface is what I'd like to see in the next release of SQL Server.

I've been working with SQL Server for two years.

SQL Server is a stable system.

SQL Server is a scalable system.

I'm satisfied with the technical support provided by Microsoft for this product.

SQL Server is easy to implement, especially because it's a very common system that we use in the workplace.

Pricing for this product is very reasonable.

I evaluated Oracle Database.

SQL Server is a common product that I use on a daily basis, and I'm using its latest version. Most of my colleagues use it for database work.

200 people use this system in the company.

My advice for people looking into using SQL Server is that it's the best choice, especially for those who are beginners with databases.

My rating for SQL Server is nine out of ten.

While we were still using the solution, we employed version 2008, which is a bit on the old side. 

We basically used the solution for hosting the database for Sage ERP.

Stability and usability, which is quite simple, are two of the solution's most valuable features. 

The solution could be better when it comes to security. 

The solution is part of Windows services, which means that if these should stop running, the database system, too, would be affected. This makes it very crucial to constantly monitor the SQL Server, something which reflects on cheap personnel time. 

Scalability could be better.

Although it comes with a cost, using the most recent version is highly advisable, since it would ensure a certain measure of bug fixes and stability. The sole issue would involve the cost, as this is expensive. 

When it comes to integratable features, the monitoring should be addressed. 

We used SQL Server for nearly six years, although we have since moved to another platform. We have used the solution at some point within the last 12 months. 

The solution has good stability, although my advice is to use the most recent version towards this end, to provide for bug fixes. This will ensure some stability. 

The scalability could be improved. 

As support would have involved a licensing fee, we opted not to make use of this. 

We find there is ample documentation online to allow us to resolve issues through independent research.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Although it comes with a cost, using the most recent version is highly advisable, since it would guarantee a measure of bug fixes and provide some stability. The pricing is expensive, though, this being the sole issue. 

We chose not to make use of support, as this would have incurred a licensing fee. 

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten. 

All of our .NET applications and some of our third-party applications require a single server database, AutoCAD, and things like that. Our custom apps are the largest estate of databases.

In our production environments, we're on version 17. I've worked with the most recent version but not in a production environment. 

I like the availability group functionality. We are setting up more clusters using availability groups. The enterprise licensing or Software Assurance makes it a little bit cheaper as well. It is nice to have that read-only copy for reporting and everything else.

They've been adding a lot of great functionality such as columnstore indexes to improve the way indexes are rebuilt and to be able to do online index rebuilds. All those are great features.

On the SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) side, I have noticed more bugs in terms of being able to connect to our SQL servers. I can't tell how many times my recent server list got dropped or cleaned out. It is a pain, and it would be nice to have that recent connect list when you connect in. For whatever reason, once in a while, I get a hard error, and it'll close. When I go back in, everything is cleared out. It is annoying when you are working with more than a hundred database instances.

I have been working with this solution for probably 18 years.

Everything is pretty much scripted out, so it is pretty straightforward for us. 

They've been adding a lot of great functionality, and hopefully, they continue down that path. We don't use a lot of the more advanced features at this point, but for what we're doing right now, it's working really great with availability groups and other features. 

Its usability has gotten a lot better after version 14. There were a lot of great updates after version 14 for SQL or query performance with the engine.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We use SQL Server to manage and store information.

They have improved the UI and ease of accessing the database and server which is good.
You can load it up and start using it from the very minute it is implemented.

I have been using SQL Server for two and a half years.

SQL Server is stable. We have more resources that are using it, I am more familiar with SQL Server. I have been using it for a long time. Most of the time it has been stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 30 people in my organization using this solution.

The technical support is okay.

The installation is straightforward.

We have administrators and engineers that do support the solution.

We are on a monthly subscription and the price could improve. However, the price has worked out well in some deployments. The problem is you never know what kind of services have been installed and you have to be in touch with many people, such as which servers are active or which are not. I did face a couple of issues in terms of subscriptions and the pricing model. They have improved over time.

I would recommend this solution to others. My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is you have to consider the industry demand and the benefits or advantages of a solution before you choose, for example, Oracle or Microsoft.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We set up SQL Servers for developers who develop applications for data mining. Our clients are generally small or medium-sized businesses. There's also a SQL Server Express that many software vendors use to support their applications. That gets installed often—usually as part of the application installation. 

It is fairly easy to work with. I like the high-availability options, like mirroring for example, and the high-availability groups. It's quite an interesting feature that enables high availability for the SQL Server. I think it's important. So that's the feature that I'm particularly interested in and it works pretty well.

The Management Studio is a pretty heavy piece of software, and it's sometimes slow. I would recommend making an express version of the Management Studio, which is lighter and has fewer features but is a little faster.

"Using" is the wrong word. We mostly set it up for others. The last time we set up an SQL Server for a client was about a year ago.

We haven't had any experiences. The software hasn't been unstable or glitchy in our environment so far.

In terms of scalability, it would be closed to a high-availability group. So I would say it varies in scale. 

I would rate it nine out of 10. Nothing's perfect.

We are using SQL Server to build and store our whole company's data in our data warehouse.

SQL Server is very good, it can be used as a transactional database and used to support the data warehouse. Additionally, the ANSI-compliant satisfies our database properties.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately eight years.

I do not think SQL Server is suited for a typical database warehouse environment. However, people do use SQL Server for data warehouse environments but the best use case is for very small databases. If somebody wants to store more than 10 TB of data querying then the performance really degrades. The performance should be improved in the future to allow more scalability.

The scalability issue could be why many are moving to solutions, such as Teradata or other high-end on-premise solutions. Additionally, cloud solutions offer better scalability options.

The technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you are looking for a small setup and do not want an open-source solution or invest too much money in your database then SQL Server is a very good choice.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Teradata.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We use this solution as our database.

It could be more stable.

I have been using SQL Server for four or five years.

SQL Server is a stable solution, but it could be improved.

Similar to Microsoft SQL, it is easy to scale.

We have a team of 300 people who are using this solution.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I used MySQL.

I was not involved in the installation.

We have an IT team to complete the installation.

There is no licensing cost for SQL Server.

I am a user of this solution but I don't know that I understand it well enough to recommend it to others because I did not install it.

I would rate SQL Server a five out of ten.