There are lots of features including the analysis, database, and reporting, services. We use it mainly for reporting and analysis purposes.
The components I use are -
- SSAS 8.5/10
- SSIS 8/10
- SSRS 7/10
There are lots of features including the analysis, database, and reporting, services. We use it mainly for reporting and analysis purposes.
The components I use are -
It has enhanced our real time decision making capabilities. It ensures we are up to date regarding our customers buying behaviour.
I've been using it for the last five and a half years.
With the latest version, it's very easy and intuitive.
We had a stability issue with the SSRS component when we deployed it into the production environment.
Not much of an issue to date.
9/10.
Technical Support:9/10.
We were using a solution from Informatica for ETL purpose, which was 8.5/10, but now we are doing it through SSIS, because it is easy to use and its cost.
The migration was, as always, a hard job, but we were able to migrate successfully.
We implemented it in-house.
We are pleased with the level of our ROI.
Microsoft’s flagship database engine, SQL Server, keeps getting better with every release. The SQL Server 2014 platform is the best-ever SQL Server release, and is packed full of features for organizations of all sizes.
Every organization has different requirements for data. Vendors might specify a particular product or platform for their software. In-house development staff might be geared towards one platform over others. Management might have their preferences. SQL Server might not be right for all shops out there, but I can state that it provides the same scalability, flexibility, and raw power of other DBMS platforms on the market, and does it with the easiest to manage suite of features that I encounter. I enjoy this product and the technical community that has grown up around this product so much that I have dedicated this portion of my career to the mastery of SQL Server as a database and architecture consultant. SQL Server 2014 continues the platform’s evolution towards the future, and I continue to stand by it.
The core database engine is one of the easiest portions of the product to administer via the included SQL Server Management Studio tool. Quite a few of the SQL Server installations that I encounter in the wild are installed by non-DBAs who just click through the installation wizard and stand up their required SQL Server instances. This simplicity is one of the product’s double-edged swords, because even though it is trivial to install, non-DBAs tend to skip the best practices around infrastructure architecture, installation, post-installation configuration, and ongoing management that helps the product to really shine.
The Enterprise edition contains an updated and enhanced feature called AlwaysOn, and it allows for the simple setup of highly available databases so that the data is available if a server fails. It also plays a double role in allowing for the setup of disaster recovery database servers so that if an entire datacenter fails, applications can continue to work with only a minor interruption in service (usually measured in seconds). Failover and failback are trivial, and a single interface is all that is required to manage the entire setup. I love this feature, and as my clients are starting to migrate to SQL Server 2012 and SQL Server 2014, see a tremendous increase in AlwaysOn adoption at the moment.
The other huge feature is with In-Memory OLTP, or codename Hekaton. It is in-memory extensions that allow an application to begin to use memory to dramatically improve the performance of an application with only minor modifications to the app code.
Other features included in the core engine and licenses editions of the production include:
SQL Server also now has the ability to move data into and out of the public cloud with ease through backing up to Microsoft’s Azure platform.
If you currently have SQL Servers in your organization, run – don’t walk – to SQL Server 2014. If you have some of the other database platforms on the market, consider migrating to SQL Server so you can reduce licensing costs, improve scalability while reducing complexity, and increase the number of database that a single DBA can individually manage.
Pros: Tremendous scalability. Easy to use and manage. Blur High Availability and Disaster Recovery with AlwaysOn Database Availability Groups. Business intelligence tools increases business insight into data.
Cons: The licensing has persisted the per-core model, and as a result the cost for the platform stays higher than expected. Adding software assurance, which I consider a must for virtualizing SQL Server, also drives up the cost.
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.
We only use it as a logging solution. We use it as logging for processing our database. It holds records for some systems and so on. That's it.
The solution is stable.
The product is scalable.
The solution is configurable.
The IT and digital transformation department are a bit fresh in this company that I am working for. They have a lot of plans, a lot of visions. I don't know how are they are going to do the infrastructure. I don't know their vision.
So far, the solution fits the scope of our company. We aren't missing any features.
The integration could be better. They are not open-source, so the integration with other platforms is not that easy.
The company has been using them for a long time. I newly joined the company two months ago, so I don't know when exactly they start using it.
The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.
You can scale the product. You can increase and decrease the storage as needed. It's very easy.
The amount of users on the solution is anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 users.
While I've never been in touch with technical support, the administration team has. They've contacted the team in Egypt. I haven't heard of any negative experiences.
I've also worked with Oracle in the past. At this company, since it is an older server, it may have been in service longer. We were using the two databases for two different functions.
I wasn't a part of the installation process, however, it's my understanding that the company handled the installation themselves.
The administration team has three or four team members. They can handle maintenance tasks and rotate tasks between themselves.
My understanding is that the company handled the installation internally. However, I was only recently hired.
Any kind of information related to costs or licensing is beyond my scope. I don't deal with that aspect of the solution. I do not know if licensing is paid monthly or yearly.
We are customers and end-users.
Our architecture is divided. There are parts on-premise and parts on Azure cloud. I don't know exactly where the SQL Server sits.
I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.
I might recommend it to other organizations. That said, it depends on the solution they need. I've worked on Oracle, I have worked on my Microsoft SQL servers. What would be best depends on the solution they need. However, Microsoft SQL servers are a very trusted product. I would recommend it if someone was asking about it.
We have used it in a variety of ways, including for e-commerce deployments.
The solution is easy to use.
The deployments are very easy.
Technical support is very helpful.
The product can scale if a company needs it to.
The stability is quite reliable.
The product can cost a bit, however, it depends on how you use it.
The solution could be more secure.
I've used the solution over a number of years. I may have started originally around 2000. It's likely been two decades or so.
The product is quite stable. there are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.
You can scale this solution if you need to. It's not an issue.
Everyone in our company is using the product. We have about 80 users on it currently.
Technical support has been helpful and responsive. We have no complaints. We are satisfied with the level of service provided to our company.
The solution is very easy to deploy. It's not a problem.
The amount of time it takes to deploy depends on what you want the solution to do for your company.
We have an installer available to us that can guide us through the process and help us choose the right options.
The solution can get expensive. You do need to pay a licensing fee in order to use it. I can't speak to the exact costs. There are different subscription types and the subscription a company needs depends on the deployment they have in mind.
I've used the solution on a couple of deployments and also deploy patches.
I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.
I would recommend the solution to other organizations and companies.
I primarily use it to extract some configuration information for my product - in order to understand how the configuration is done for my base product.
The solution is very easy to use. It's intuitive and easy to navigate. Overall, it's a straightforward product.
You don't really need a learning code to study MySQL. If you know the basics, it's quite easy to use the product. There isn't a high learning curve and you don't have to be overly technical.
The initial setup was straightforward.
The documentation could be much better. It's lacking right now. If there are better help pages, for even complicated queries and stuff like that that would be quite a help for users.
There were times where it was not working all the time, however, that could be due to some issues on our network side as well. I'm not really sure of that, and therefore can't blame the solution. However, I do remember experiences where, when I tried something, it didn't work.
I've been dealing with the solution for seven years now. It's been a while.
For my purposes, I haven't had any issues with stability. I find it to be reliable in terms of performance. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's good.
I don't really use it heavily, basically, my usage is quite small. It's been okay for me for my purposes. However, it's my understanding that it can scale.
We have more than ten engineers that currently use the product regularly.
I've never needed to reach out to technical support from Microsoft, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I don't have any direct experience I can draw from.
The initial setup was not overly difficult or complex. It was quite straightforward. It's a pretty simple process.
Our team is capable of handling the maintenance internally.
In terms of pricing, I just downloaded it and started using it. I don't have a lot of information on licensing. I can't speak to the costs.
We are just a customer and an end-user. We do not have a business relationship with SQL.
I would recommend the solution to other users. So far, the experience I have had over the years has been a positive one.
I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.
We are a product-based company, and we use it as part of our product. It is deployed in a public cloud and on-premises.
We use it as part of our product, so it is helpful for us. It is easy to move data across versions, and it holds lots of our internal data for operations.
It is easy to use and very stable.
Its support for JSON should be improved. It does support JSON, but the support is not good enough currently.
They should also improve the way indexes work. Its performance can also be improved because sometimes it becomes very slow for certain table designs.
It cannot have more than a certain amount of data. As compared to other databases, its capability to handle large volumes of data is not very good.
I have been using this solution for ten years.
It has been very stable. We had a very good experience with it.
Scaling is a challenge because you cannot scale horizontally. We've run into a couple of scenarios where we were not able to scale it easily.
Their support is quite satisfactory. They have not been perfect every time, but they have mostly been quite good. They're prompt, but they weren't able to resolve some of the issues.
It is easy to install.
Our IT team handles the installation.
It is expensive.
You should know its limitations. It cannot have more than a certain amount of data.
I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.
I am an IT professional, I write services for my clients. I provide support services for SQL, firewalls, and operating systems. IT infrastructure support in general is what I provide.
What I like most is the management, as it is very easy compared with other products.
Security is an issue. This is an area that needs to be improved.
There is security built-in, but most of the developers don't emphasize the security enough. When they are building the products or databases, they don't focus on the security of the database.
I have been providing services for this solution to my clients for five or six years.
We have had no issues with stability. It's one of the most stable products.
This solution is scalable. It is easy to expand.
In the five or six years that I have been handling SQL Servers, I have not had to contact technical support.
Their documentation is sufficient for troubleshooting and maintenance activity.
I am also using Sophos.
The initial setup was straightforward.
We have our in-house team of more than 10 engineers for maintenance.
Pricing is a bit on the higher side. It could be reduced.
To others who are interested in using this solution, I would say go for it. It's a stable database that is easy to configure and maintain. I would suggest this solution when compared with other databases.
I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.
Re. SSRS for adhoc reporting, I would argue SSRS was not meant for adhoc reporting - that's the purpose of PowerBI and Excel PowerPivot. The people who use SSRS should be data consumers who want specific formats whereas adhoc reporting is data explorers who will want a different tool. One size never fits all with any vendor and this is not exception.