SQL Server Reviews

A great database management system for all size companies. SQL server is more user friendly than competitors. Provides easy installation. If you need support or research for the product, it is easy to find help online. There are 3 editions available which will meet any companies needs. Latest version is cloud ready. Offers power and flexibility.

For each additional core feature you want to add to your DBMS edition, it is more money. This is not a FREE program as most other DBMS are. So basically, the more you want, the more you pay.

A great DBMS for organizations of all sizes. Will be my first choice for a DBMS again in the future. The installation process was simple. You will pay for this SQL Server, but don't be afraid to try the free programs also.

It's a normal DMS, so it can be used everywhere you want to use any RDBMS or relational database. It's for normal transactions.

SQL Server could integrate better with other platforms.

I've been using SQL Server for the last six months. Earlier we used DB2, but now we use this one.

SQL Server's performance is fine.

Microsoft support is fine.

We don't deal with the setup because we are developers. The system or admin team does all those things. So I don't have any idea.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10. We haven't had any issues, but it depends on the use case. So I would recommend it depending on your use case.

On-premises

Other

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. 

On-premises

The customer's MES system  use it.  The database system desgin as always on architecture.

Like Data guard in Oracle , always on contain double data and sync data by using transactions store in transaction log

It is easy to establish, and the license price is lower than that of Oracle.  

Otherwise, our customer could can replace primary databases from Oracle into MSSQL AG

Base on  windows cluster,  the always on no needs complicated config process.

Just click and click following  GUI interface.

table partition options,  that is very useful to separate unnecessary cost. 

For legacy data,  we can do partition swith out and store into flat files or old tables.

When it necessary, we can switch in back.

Horizontal partitioning.  

In that case,  cold , warm and hot data can be distributed into different database not only table partition located on different FGs .

Three to five years.

Sometimes , when windows server suddently failed, the database still can be turn on when DB server started.

When do "sp_rename" or "table rebuild" , the cluster index or non-cluster index no needs to rebuild at same time

Customer always comes out many questions

I have no choice. our customer choose MS SQL 

 initial setup straightforward

ordinary level

database administrator

Migration local database into cloud

No, I  have to accepted it 

subpartition is necessary

We primarily use SQL Server for reporting.

I love SQL Server's Common Table Expression. In addition to that, I like its lead and lag functions. That helped us reduce a lot of code when comparing rows in SQL Server.

The way SQL Server pivots data could be improved. For example, I would like built-in comma-separated pivot and unpivot functions. 

I've been working with SQL Server for the past seven years. 

SQL Server is stable.

SQL Server is scalable. I can't say if we'll increase usage in the future because I'm only working here as an analyst. It's a company decision. If necessary, then I can make a recommendation. I can go for that if the client wants, so it depends entirely on our client. If the client wants Oracle instead of Microsoft, I don't have an option.

I never contacted Microsoft support about SQL Server, but I have called about Power BI one or two times. It was great support.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10. 

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We are business consults. We use SQL Server to ensure that critical applications remain operational by performing BCM activities across application and database servers.

SQL Server has scaled as per our requirements.

I would like to see improvements made to the stability of SQL Server, as well as more analytics requirements.

From a restoration perspective, I have been working with SQL Server for a few years.

The stability of the SQL Server needs improvements.

We have over 2,000 users in our organization.

I have contacted technical support, and overall my experience with technical support was okay.

The installation took a few days to complete.

We have a team of three or four admins to maintain this solution.

We had assistance from an integrator.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

We were evaluating other solutions for a specific requirement in our organization. The requirement is now complete.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

On-premises

SQL Server is the database for the transactional database that is being used.

The solution can be used for the BI, the data warehouse part as well, but mostly I have seen it used for the transaction data being stored by the DBMS part of it.

The solution is very easy to use, because even the technical engineers that we get are able to use it more efficiently. I like the programming interface they have where they help us get the table names that we are dealing with, and the field names in that particular table. 

The interface for building the queries or writing the store procedures is good.

If I compare the solution with current technology needs, like NoSQL, that have been prevailing now, they could improve it so there could be a single solution, where we could deal with a single database for both transactional as well as for the in-memory needs that we have.

For the integration part, additional interfaces would be an improvement. If SQL Server could expose certain APIs or certain interfaces which can be used for integration with the warehouse solution, then it would be great.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The team needed for implementing the solution depends on the project size and functionalities needed. But as far as the DB administrator, generally, we use a single resource for each project. One database engineer is sufficient for optimizing the query or indexes or building any database scripts.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

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.