SQL Server Reviews

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 use it mostly for integration into an ERP system. We also use it for our internal development of products.

We have many users, between 50 and 100 using the SQL Server product.

We have been using SQL Server from the start, so it's a stable product.

I think a web console for the management studio, I think that would be a good thing. I think also on load balancing. I think that's something that we can use.

We've been using SQL Server for 12 years. We are currently using the latest version. It is deployed on-premise and cloud.

The product is stable.

The product is scalable.

Right now we don't get much technical support from Microsoft. I think for all issues we encounter, we do the solutions by ourselves. I think if there should be some avenue for us to raise some issues that we are encountering, so maybe that would be something that's good for us as well. It is not easy to contact Microsoft support for this product.

Setup required two engineers to deploy it. It was pretty straightforward and took one to two days.

We didn't have any licensing costs for SQL Server.

I would recommend this product to others and give it an 8 out of 10.

We are a software development company. Most of our developers use SQL Server. We plan to continue using this solution in the future.

We use SQL Server for relational database management.

We have a variety of customers who use it in the government sector and in the tourism sector.

The time series database could be improved. There needs to be more storage space for large documents.

The user interface and the reporting could also be improved. It's not bad, but it could be improved upon.

I have been using this solution for 20 years.

SQL Server is both scalable and stable.

The technical support is good.

Installation was very easy. We had it installed within one hour.

One of our team members deployed it.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a rating of eight.

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 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.

We use on-premises, standalone deployment of SQL Server for our own CRM database. There are around seven to eight users in our company. 

SQL Server suffices our main requirement of a small database, and it is also very cost-effective.

The features that we have found the most valuable are reliability, availability perspective, and current scalability. 

The scalability and the high availability feature can be expanded or improved. Currently, there is a limitation on scalability. 

A feature similar to the Oracle Diagnostic feature can be included to provide a better user experience. 

We have been using SQL Server for around 10 years. 

Stability and scalability are both good. It suffices for our current requirements, but if we want to scale up in the future, it has limitations.

We sometimes contacted Microsoft technical support, and we also have in-house Microsoft support. We are happy with the support.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

Our in-house team handled the deployment. 

SQL Server is a cost-effective solution for a small database. 

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. 

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. 

Not a ten because it has some limitations. When considering overall scalability, reliability, features, if you look at Oracle, it's still ahead of SQL Server.

We primarily use the solution for our daily operations.

The solution has provided our clients with some valuable data feeds.

The performance is a very valuable aspect of the solution.

SQL is very easy to manage.

Occasionally the performance, as good as it is, is a bit off. We sometimes experience memory spiking. If they could maybe fix that aspect of the solution, that would be quite helpful for our organization.

We've been using the solution for more than ten years at this point.

The solution is extremely stable. We haven't had issues. We don't really experience bugs or glitches and haven't had the system crash on us before.

The scalability of the solution is very good. A company that needs to expand should be able to do so fairly easily.

We have about ten people using SQL at our organization. Some are in Operations. Some are developers.

The data we have is constantly expanding and growing for us, so we already are increasing the capacity of the SQL server. We'll continue to do so as necessary.

If we have any issues, we contact Microsoft. We only do so if something happens and we can't fix it ourselves. It hasn't happened too many times, and it usually doesn't revert to me to reach out, so although I know we have used them in the past, I myself have no direct experience dealing with them.

It's been about ten years since we started using SQL, which is quite a long time. I don't recall if we used a different solution before that or not. If we did, I don't know what it would have been.

I'm not sure how to answer as to if the solution is straightforward or complex in terms of setup. I didn't handle the deployment, so I'm not the person who would be best equipped to answer these types of questions.

I'm not the person that deals with billing and payments, so I don't know what the cost of the solution is, or if it is monthly or yearly billing. 

I'm not sure if we would have looked at something else or what it might have been. If there was research and a comparison was done, that would have been a decade ago. It's been a long time. 

We are using the 2008 and 2017 versions.

I'd like others to know that SQL is easy to use and easy to manage. It also offers pretty good performance, in my opinion.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's not too expensive, or at least that is my understanding, but I am aware there are lots of open source options out there as well companies may want to consider.

My primary use case is for data mining and processing data from plants. It's normally just for databases for the systems.

The availability is the most valuable feature. It has high availability. It also has good performance. 

In terms of improvement, it could use more integration with other products.

I have been using this solution for around ten years. 

The stability is good. We don't have any issues with stability or scalability. 

We have contacted support when we had Windows issues. They are okay, not the best but not the worst. They know what they're doing but they take a little too long. The response time isn't so good. 

The initial setup is mostly straightforward. The time it takes to deploy depends on the circumstances. It takes around three or four hours. 

I would recommend this solution. It's a good product. I am satisfied with it. It's familiar, we've been using SQL for a while. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement. 

Mainly, I do infrastructure support. We do fine-tuning, information, configuration, higher-level availability, and replication. Also, single and clustering solutions - both kinds.

We do on-premises and cloud deployments. This is because some customers use Microsoft Azure, mainly in the financial sector, such as the Sri Lanka Government, who has many databases that cannot go on the cloud. The financial sector also works with on-prem databases.

I am mainly using the SQL Server from 2019. That's the latest version since last January while our customers are mainly using the 2016 and 2017 versions. This is because we are not providing the latest version. We are testing some bugs now. In terms of functionality, I think the 2017 version is better. I have not fully tested the 2019, so I cannot give a recommendation for it.

Its availability for a secured server is one of its most valuable features. Also its replication features are valuable- we can manage eight replicas. Their clustering and availability groups are also valuable.

They do not offer the SQL Server Management tool via the installation. It is a separate tool I use when I'm trying to configure the mirroring with SQL Server Mirroring. This is not supported and I'm getting some errors on the database mirroring. So sometimes I use the 2014 management console and the 2017 server for that. If the customer does not agree to that, I use a query for the database mirroring connections.

Additionally, I think some kind of machine learning related feature should be included. This is because technology is moving fast and all of the customers are getting it easier. So developers are making machine learning products. That's why they should include some kind of a machine learning feature here, too.

Which initial setup are you referring too? It has multiple solutions and installations, some of which are very simple. Clustering is very difficult to setup.

Setup time depends on the customer's environment, including database size, the number of databases, and the amount of data. Last week I did a PLC with two databases and one availability crew. It took two days because one day I did clustering. It can be done in one day but the customer provides another day for that.

Also, because the customers haven't kept some downtime, we request some kind of downtime for the primary server. So sometimes we plan downtime when we need some days for the complete environment.

I'm working with Microsoft solutions in Sri Lanka. We have a technical team for the DB side only - Microsoft SQL Servers, Azure platform, SQL servers. All of those have a security device. And as I mentioned, installation is per requirement. There is no need for a couple of engineers for that.

In terms of maintenance after the deployment, it also varies depending on the number of databases.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Microsoft MDS an eight. I'd give it an 8 and not a 10 because it lacks some features, such as machine learning.

We have a Windows Server environment.

This is a production system for secure document issuing in a government department.

It helped reduce licensing costs and also running costs, as well as the learning curve.

The most valuable feature is replication because we had several replicas of the SQL Server database in different geographical locations.

I would like to have more replication scenarios.