SQL Server Reviews

The solution is our main database and stores our data at the organization. We're a Microsoft shop. That's why it's the main database. We have licenses for the servers. The only reason I'm using that is that that's what we have. However, I don't actually like working with it.

The solution works. It does what you need it to do.

Their integration, SSRS and SSIS tools are really good. The flow is great.

The pricing of the solution is okay. It's less expensive than Oracle, for example.

It's night and day if you compare it to Oracle, and I am an Oracle fan.

Their datatypes need improvement. The SQL Server language in itself, its datatypes, seem like they are stuck in the eighties. Even companies that work with an SQL Server, experts on J.D. Edwards that sits on SQL Server that handles all the data transformation, they've actually converted the SQL Server datatypes so that they are more useful and easy to handle on their solutions. That tells you right then and there that their datatypes must improve.

When you run your SQL optimizer there, on the datatypes, it's very costly because it's just this level of conversion that needs to happen as opposed to just calling it numeric, or as opposed to calling it something else. Their datatypes technically work. If you know what you're doing, it really can give you all that. However, on the optimization side, on the performance side, it does struggle.

The datatype conversion to push my data to an enterprise data warehouse is difficult. I can tell you Oracle data is so much easier to ingest into it and it easier than doing it on a SQL Server.

There are many issues that I face when I'm pulling data straight from a SQL Server agent. There are more collections that I need to do or handle before it hits my target table. I noticed that due to the fact that I've been working on different databases and ingesting everything in a data warehouse. It just doesn't flow properly.

Even on their SQL Studios, that Master Studio tools, even if you try to do your conversions on their own, even though this is their native tool, you're always going to have some problems and it's always going to give you some type of error. It is just difficult to tell you what the error will be. You have to dig in and figure it out. Most of that is due to datatypes. It's just not easy. It's like pulling teeth. Especially if you have had experience using a tool, like Oracle, that is just not that painful.

There seems to be a lot of patching, which leads me to believe there may often be stability issues.

I haven't used the solution for too long. I've used it here at the company for two years.

The stability is more on the IT side. I have not paid attention to that as I'm outside the SQL Server. My enterprise data warehouse is not on a SQL Server. Once I get the data, I don't know what's happening in that space. It's not my realm anymore. I know they patch a lot. That gives me a hint that the solution has its issues with bugs. I can't really say if it's stable or not, however, I'm leaning towards no.

I have no personal experience dealing with technical support directly. I can't speak to their responsiveness or level of knowledge.

I'm a big fan of Oracle, which I have worked with for 18 years. Comparing the two is like comparing the iOS of Apple versus Windows. They're two very different systems and typically you either like one or the other.

The solution doesn't cost as much as Oracle. Oracle is more expensive. That's always been the complaint with Oracle. They're very good, however, they're the most expensive out there and that's how they're losing business right now. Their big jump in the cloud happened way too late in the game, and everybody just jumped on the cloud due to high costs. If you were to compare pricing, SQL Server is much cheaper.

I'm currently moving away from the solution.

I'm an Oracle guy, so SQL Server is new to me. I don't like it. I'm moving away from it.

If you're a Microsoft shop, definitely SQL Server is the right solution for you. If you're used to it, it definitely makes sense as an option. It's nice. It works. If you have not seen the other side of things, then you might like it. As long as you're staying in the Microsoft world, it works. However, it's very clunky. From an analytics perspective, a data handling perspective, it is clunky. That is why I decided to go to Tableau instead of Power BI. There are just too many dependencies on the ecosystem. Once you get ingested into that SQL Farm, it's hard to leverage other tools that are disrupting the industry as you're just stuck in that ecosystem.

That's an issue with Oracle as well. That's just Microsoft and Oracle. They're pretty much the same. They're an enterprise solution. And there's an advantage when you're inside an enterprise using all these different services, and the tools that they have. There's definitely a huge advantage in that, however, it's limiting. If you look at Tableau Oracle would say, "We have our OBIE" and Microsoft would say that "we have a SSRS." 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

Very pleasing and satisfying experience.

• Used to create queries
• Implemented store procedures
• DBA can also use this effectively.

• Used to create queries
• Implemented store procedures
• DBA can also use this effectively. 
• Reduces other manual work.

• Creating and executing SQL queries, transactions, ACID properties
• Creating and implementing stored procedures.

Every good tool has its own limitations. 

• First of all its cost. It is very high. 
• We need a good amount of RAM to properly use this. 
• Sometimes, query sticks in between. 

But our organization provides great RAM, so we don't have any issue with its speed.

No.

It's good.

No.

Go for it. Thumbs up.

We use the solution as a database for saving and managing data and applications.

Most valuable features include: high availability, clustering, save backup and recovery.

Although I am satisfied with the solution, some clients have asked us to resolve technical issues, such as those involving silver solution and replication.

I have been working with SQL Server for four or five years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I am satisfied with the solution's partner support. 

I am  satisfied with SQL Server.

Use of alternative solutions varies with the client involved. Some make use of all that SQL Server has to offer, while others employ everything in Oracle Database. We have managed to resolve any issues they have encountered in the two cases in which they have approached us. 

When examining Oracle or IBM db2, Oracle and SQL Server are generally the prefered products. 

While I find the setup and installation to be easy, others may find it difficult. 

I am only a technician and responsible for the installation, so I cannot comment on the licensing, although there are others in my company who are better qualified to do so. 

The solution is mostly deployed for our clients on-premises. 

We are satisfied with the documentation. 

My advice is that one adhere to the documentation before doing installation. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

We use it

• to capture long distance calls for billing
• as a quoting database
• to redirect phone calls based on customer caller line id.

Ease of use.

• Only one CPU core can be used
• Can’t move a database between servers easily
• Can’t use triggers

The free version is cumbersome to use and maintain. But $5000 for a licence is more expense than the benefit I would get from a licensed version.

No stability issues.

We are capturing 1 million calls per month. The free version can’t scale this much data.

Never used. Google is sufficient.

Postgre has a weird syntax and it is slower than MS SQL. The command line interpeter makes it complex to learn.

MS SQL is the easiest of the three I tried.

A licence might be worth the price to simplify management and speed up searches.

SQL Server has helped us make better decisions through the queries that we have built.

SQL Server's most valuable features are that it is a large number of community resources to help you out. that's one, and then it is quite powerful.

SQL Server backups could be better.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately three years.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

I have found SQL Server to be scalable.

The solution is suitable for all-sized businesses.

The technical support from SQL Server is quite good.

I was satisfied with the implementation of the solution.

The price of SQL Server is great. In my company, SQL Server is part of the Microsoft Suite, we don't have to pay for any additional license costs, it's quite cost-effective for us.

My advice to others is SQL Server is a good tool to work with and there are a lot of community resources available to help you out in case you are stuck anywhere.

I rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

We have been using SQL Server for more than 10 or 15 years. 

Microsoft support is an issue unto itself. We mainly benefit from common support, such as a forum or Microsoft support, of which I don't have that much experience.

As with Oracle Database, the solution has a reliable database. I do not see much difference between the two when it comes to usage and the program decision to use one solution over another varies with the appropriateness of a given product, some utilizing Oracle, others Scale.

I am an SQL partner. 

As with Oracle, SQL Server is deployed on private cloud. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

We use SQL Server for web application and website development.

The most valuable features of this solution are easy queries and straightforward programming for beginners.

SQL Server could improve by providing something similar to an interface or dashboard where a developer can do debugging, this would make a developer's work easier. Additionally, the optimization could be better. If there was an interface showing information needed for the optimization it would help because there can be some data loss making it difficult to optimize the SQL Server.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good for simple applications. However, the problem with scalability is if the application is too large, it cannot handle it. We have to depend on other database servers. 

I have not used technical support but I have used the open forums online that provide all the information that we have needed. There is a large online community for support. 

The installation is straightforward.

There is a license required for this solution and we pay monthly. The price is reasonable compared to other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We use the product for information systems. This is a must both for us. We use it for our Enterprise Portal.

The solution has proven to be very flexible.

The product is quite stable.

Overall, we've found it to be extremely easy to use. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not difficult to implement and the deployment doesn't take too long.

Technical support has been pretty good so far. They are helpful.

It's a good option for those that have a lot of Microsoft solutions in use.

The solution needs to be more secure. It's lacking, compared to, for example, Oracle.

The product needs to work on its scalability. Oracle can scale a bit more effectively.

Sometimes we have some performance issues. It's not like Oracle. Oracle is more powerful in terms of performance. 

I've just been dealing with the solution for a few months. It hasn't been too long just yet.

We've had some performance issues overall. It's something that's a pain point for us. They need to work on their capabilities in this regard.

The solution could be more scalable. Oracle scales better for companies that need to expand.

We have two to three customers that use the solution currently.

We've used technical support in the past. They've been helpful and responsive. We haven't had any issues when we deal with them. We are quite satisfied so far with the level of service we receive when we reach out. 

I've also used Oracle in the past. From my side, Oracle is more technical and is more scalable, and more secure than the SQL server.

The installation is quite straightforward. It's not overly difficult or complicated. I found it to be quite simple.

The deployment is rather quick. It took us about one hour, from what I can recall.

We just need one technical person to handle the implementation and maintenance processes. 

Customers do have to pay to use the solution. They tend to pay on a yearly basis. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to other customers, users, and companies. It's a good option of r many. Sometimes the customer is Microsoft-oriented and sometimes they are Oracle-oriented. If the customer is already using a lot of Microsoft products, SQL just makes sense.