SQL Server Reviews

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.

The main use of this solution is to control and manage data storage information.

I would like the SQL Server to be able to provide cloud support. We use the solution with a Korean provider supporting only MySQL rather than Microsoft SQL Server, which would be preferable and cheaper. This would prevent us from having to pay for troubleshooting and hosting the server.

I have been using the solution for approximately two years. 

The solution is stable. 

I find the solution not to be scalable. 

There are approximately six people in our company using SQL Server.

I have not needed to contact technical support.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I did the implementation of the solution myself, it does not require any consultants or integrators.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for data storage. We use it for its data warehouse, BI services, and AI.

If you compare the SQL Server with the block storage it's stable and it's working. 

The product has been on the market for over 25 or 30 years. It's an extremely mature solution.

The solution is pretty scalable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, depending on your requirements.

The solution is very expensive. 

Technical support could be faster.

I've been using the solution for many years. It's been a while. It's likely been over ten years or so - a decade or more.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with ease.

Three people are using the solution in our organization.

We've used technical support in the past. However, it's not a very fast support system. For the new Office 365, it's better. This solution still needs to work on support.

For a specific task, we are using this solution. However, for some other tasks, we're using MongoDB, MariaDB, Oracle, or something else. It depends on the task and the solution and the requirements.

The installation is not overly complex or difficult for the most part. The initial setup's level of straightforwardness, however, depends. If you only need an SQL Server, it's easy. If you need a cluster, it's more difficult. If you need a great cluster all over the world, it's more difficult.

I handled the installation myself. I did not need the help of an integrator or consultant.

The solution is expensive. The pricing is different and not really standardized. If you're using it on Azure you pay on your workloads. If you have a separate dedicated instance, you pay for the course. It's different, according to the situation, however, in either case, it's expensive.

We are customers and end-users.

We are using the 2014 and 2019 versions of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations and users. However, if it will work for a company, or if it will work for them in an ideal manner depends on the requirements you have to fulfill as an organization. For example, race cars may be good cars, and great products, however, it's for a specific task. For other tasks, it may not be useful.

I general, I'm quite satisfied with the solution and it does what I need it to do. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

Typically, the SQL Server is used in many, many ways. We primarily use SQL Server when there is a data requirement for our projects.

Typically there are uses around where you are creating a database. I've yet to store the data in our RPA server. We need MS Excel through Microsoft.

Any sort of  RPA process where you require data through housing data or using a database, you need an SQL Server.

The solution is extremely stable. The performance is reliable.

The scalability of the solution is very good.

Technical support is pretty good. they are prompt in their responses.

You do need to have technical knowledge in order to install the solution. It's not something a layperson can do.

The scalability can always be improved.

I've been using this solution for a number of years now. It's been a while. I have some experience with it. 

The stability of the product is very good. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It doesn't give us any trouble.

The solution is very capable of scaling. A company should have no trouble expanding the solution as needed.

You can always add on to the server or make compartments into it.

We have a team of about 200 or more people using the solution.

We do plan to continue using the solution.

We've dealt with technical support in the past. We found that their responses have been prompt. Given their engagement to typical organizations, they do decent work. I would say that we are mostly satisfied with the level of support on offer.

We did not use any other databases prior to SQL. We only use SQL.

The initial setup does take some time. It depends upon how you are establishing the server in your environment and depends upon the firewall of your organization. It is a lengthy process, however, it is not that grueling. Depending upon the firewall of your organization, it does take time. That influences the time.

I can handle the installation myself. I did not need the help of a consultant or integrator. However, whoever installs it must be somebody who has the technical knowledge. Not everybody can do it.

We have an organizational license.

We are customers and end-users. We do not have a business relationship with SQL.

We are using the latest version of the solution. I cannot recall the exact version number.

I would recommend the solution to other users, companies, and organizations.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

The columnstore index feature is useful for us, and we also use the integration services. It is also very stable.

We would like to have a common storage option in the SQL Server. This option is available in Oracle Database. It would be great if Microsoft could create something like a columnstore that has not only indexing but also tables for common storage.

I have been using SQL Server for four years.

It is pretty stable.

If we talk about just standard RDBMS, it is very scalable because we don't have to scale platforms.

All communication with Microsoft technical support is done by our internal support group. I'm not communicating with them directly. I guess their technical support is okay and fast.

I would recommend SQL Server as a solution for a medium enterprise or a small business.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I use SQL Server to optimize SQL queries and find the estimated cost of my queries. 

I also use it to fine tune my procedures and functions.

• SQL Server has maintained my database problem in an arranged manner.
• SQL Server Profiler makes finding and debugging easy.
• Support for third-party tools, like SQL Search.

• SQL Server Profiler: Know exactly which procedures and functions are being called and how much read and write they are taking.
• Tuning Advisor: It suggests where to add indexes and from where to remove them. It works like an adviser.
• Storage capability
• Debugger: The debugger tool can execute code step-by-step.

• Third-party services from Redgate should be built-in to it, like SQL Search.
• Debugging from the debugger tool functionality should be enhanced.
  

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

It is good.

I have been using SQL Server from the start.

It was straightforward.

In-house.

It is good.

The setup cost is high, but it will return every penny.

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.

There was an online system in which we had about 2500 requests to the DB per second. Every request had a completion window of one second to process and retrieve data. Before my arrival, the numbers were 1000 requests per second and two, and sometimes, three to five seconds spent per request.

After switching to SQL Server, and AlwaysOn, and Snapshot, and tinkering, and configuring and tinkering, the handling capacity we measured increased to about 5000 requests per second, while the time decreased to 0.5 seconds per request.

The AlwaysOn high-availability feature is the most valuable feature of SQL Server to us. This is because of the relative ease of the configuration, rather than configuring for OLTP-OLAP distinction.

As a software developer, it can be hard to do something in Oracle that is SQL Server specific, and vice-versa, sometimes.

Improvements must not be stopped and must not end. When business needs arrive, then the improvements follow. For example, 15-20 years ago, MySQL did not have built-in Stored Procedure support; there was no business need for MySQL to have stored procedures built-in.

One stability issue I encountered was the deadlocking between calls to the same resources (tables, etc.). That was solved by row versioning. (We were shooting ourselves in the feet).

No scalability issues.

I have never had the need to reach out to the vendor.

Yes I did use another solution previously. The switch was mainly for the performance. Secondly, it was for the technology compatibility.

It was very straightforward. There was no complexity which I couldn’t handle.

I’m not a "product" fan. I try to use "the" product which will comply smoothly with the software I’m working on.

I’ve been working on Microsoft SQL Server since 2005, and currently I’m using SQL Server 2014 in my development environment and SQL Server 2012 in the production environment.