SQL Server Reviews

It is widely used and we never have problems with it. It can handle a PC, and it can also handle huge data. It is fast and efficient. It is something unique that tracks reporting of records, personnel, finances and more. It also integrates well with everything, not just Microsoft tools. 

It would be nice to search for specific value across multiple tables. This would save a lot of time. 

I have never had a problem with the stability of the solution. 

We have never really had a problem with the scalability of the solution. 

I have never used technical support. It is the joke at the office that you cannot get help on the Microsoft website at all. Also, downloading anything from Microsoft is usually a nightmare. Honestly, I end up googling the problem and solving it myself. This is definitely something Microsoft needs to improve.

It is definitely important for someone looking at a new vendor to consider the support of the solution. In addition, the customer should really do their research and understand what their needs are, and make sure the new solution will solve those needs. 

This is a departmental database engine which supports primarily localized solutions, data capture, and retrieval. However, with the exception of our aviation group, it is used for localized data lake or reporting solutions support.

It is cost effective with easy integration into the core MS Office tools. Hence user adoption is easy. Also, being a commodity product there is an abundance of cheap resources having experience with the toolkit, but very few senior or truly expert support personnel are available. Again because it is viewed as a commodity product even by developers, no serious time is spent on skills development with this toolkit.

Traditional DB toolkit closely integrated into Microsoft Office. This makes it truly easy to deploy in a light non-business critical environment.

• It does not scale up to a truly global environment. We operate in 220+ countries and territories with data services centralized in three data centers. The ability for MS SQL to operate in this environment is a challenge for anything spanning regions or having a global footprint. 
• It is best suited to supporting a single functional instance by business domain or a single country. 
• MS needs to work better at the WAN implementations transoceanic. 
• It also needs to have a less closed or less MS centric tool dependency as integration with other databases and non-MS development environments is always problematic.

The database is primarily used as back-end storage.

As an engineer working for multiple organisations, MS SQL has proven stability and operational power.

The additional tools, like SSIS and reporting services, make this solution useful.

Improvements to the indexing, columnstore indexing, and high availability groups are good improvements for future versions.

MS SQL is constantly improving their products. New options, such as managing with PowerShell, are good improvements.

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.

All our main DBs run on SQL.

Ability to convert to bigger DBs. It makes it easier to move or upgrade between branches.

From a DB administrator perspective, I would like to see more space requirements and space capacity history, so that we are able to see which DBs are growing, and by how much per day or week.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Have not used tech support.

Straightforward.

Plan ahead, and make sure do not pay for something you are not going to fully use.

Naming conventions are very very important. Make sure that your principle and mirror servers have the same disk space from the outset.

In the current organisation there was no centralised data repository. Thus, statistics, reporting, and generic management information were not existent. With the introduction of SQL Server, we have consolidated relevant business data into one main repository. We built reporting structures and analytics on top of the repository to help analysts and teams manage themselves, as well as provide management information. From basic or incomplete reports and statistics, we moved to a full reporting data structure, providing a holistic view of the organisation's data.

Without any doubt the Integration Services and Analysis Services are the most widely used. These are the basis for data quality, data gathering, ETL process, as well as collation for the data warehouse, Cube-generation, and ad-hoc processes. The ease in which you may mold a process flow or even modularly add in new structures is something which is much needed in my job.

An area that definitely needs improvement is the Reporting Service side with the actual report server. Although to be fair, Microsoft has developed a new branch of tools for reporting; presumably that is why they have not improved the Reporting Service side. Nevertheless, if this was not the case then, yes, it would be an area for improvement. Another area would be the SQL Server process monitoring, which is quite basic and could sustain more information.

Overall, SQL Server 2014 is a very stable product and so far I cannot remember major issues that I have encountered. The only item which I can list is application failure during Integration Services debugging, when restarting a process flow. In a number of instances the solutions fails. I have not given this much thought and simply stop and start the debugging service rather than restarting.

So far, we have had no scalability issues. I have read about instances where people encounter issues online, but fortunately enough I have never encountered issues.

Yes, in the past I have worked with different versions of SQL server and have switched due to upgrades to utilise the latest version. I have also used Oracle, Tableau, SAP, and Jaspersoft.

The main reason I went for SQL Server is because it felt easier and more adaptive. Also, most of the products we use within the organisation are Microsoft-based, so that provided an extra advantage over the rest.

Not too complex. We had spent a number of months on the design and planning stages, deciding how we would go about the setup, security, and accessibility aspects, so that when it came time for the actual setup, the process looked pretty straightforward. Don't get me wrong, it still took a number of days to finalise, but we had a concrete plan of action, the steps needed, and the work was delegated accordingly.

My advice is quite straightforward. If you know the number of users who really and truly need access to the Server then it is a no-brainer. If you do not know, then get the basic package and minimum licenses and start from there. Needless to say, users can develop/use data structures outside and then deploy onto the Server.

Within the current organisation, we did not look at other options. I was pretty confident that the product would do the job, based on my previous experience with similar products. One key factor which pushed us to choose SQL Server was the cost of the product versus the amount of work to develop/maintain.

I rate it eight out of 10. It is quite a good product and has improved dramatically. Like all products, it has bugs here and there and some areas still need improvement.

I have been using the solution for the past two and half years, however, I have worked with older versions of SQL Server (2012, 2008, 2005). The solution is quite powerful and versatile and I have not yet used all the areas/modules of the solution. It is not always easy to utilise all the available modules for the solution, especially if your work is focused solely on a particular area. Nonetheless, I try to use different areas for side projects.

Plan thoroughly before, and once implemented go through the structure regularly and remodel accordingly. When planning, go through all the various sections, resources, accessibility, security etc.

Initially as a post-transactional database, but now it's mainly a transactional database and for Analysis Services.

It's a very capable, efficient, price-performant OLAP server on which we can build our solutions.

Analysis Services, because we are an independent software vendor in the business-intelligence area.

The web interface and the command line interface could be better so we could manage and build some things around an API. If we could build our own solution, our own interface, and then manage the solution through that open API, that would be better.

With the new, big releases, there's quite a lot of work that we have to do. From 2005 to 2008, and then from 2012 to 2016. But, otherwise, it's quite stable. It's nice.

Even for us, it's quite okay. For the type of customers we have now, it's okay. But, for a big amount of data, when we are speaking about IoT Segments, and Big Data projects, there are performance issues.

If there wasn't Stack Overflow, that would be a problem. But luckily there are also other resources on the web which we can use to help ourselves. Just depending on Microsoft support it would not be so great.

We used PostgreSQL, and we also used some other OLAP servers.

It's more and more complex. The 2005 version was very nice and neat, but now it's more and more complicated.

The price has been going higher and higher. The market is quite price sensitive.

At that time there was also Sybase, Oracle, MySQL. That's at the time those databases were up.

It's good if you need OLAP services.

I give it a seven out of 10 overall, because of the things mentioned: First is that during the version upgrades, sometimes things are complicated. The second thing is the support is not so... without an open-source community it would not be so good. Third is the pricing, because it's changing, sometimes it's confusing.

Implementing solutions for controllers and project managers on their financial data for 10 years, and now using the Power BI Microsoft solution.

Implementing a unified, reliable database is one of the main improvements of departments whose business is to make decisions according their aggregated data. SQL Server, with the services it offers, has the full capability to manage this goal.

SSAS is the most interesting feature to organize the data and let the users play with it.

SSIS is also very powerful, but not always user-friendly. It requires you to build a solution around SSIS.

The reporting services of the solution (SSRS and now Power BI) are the less valuable items of the SQL Server suite.