SQL Server Reviews

I use the solution in my company for .NET programs and as a database.

The solution's most valuable part revolves around data management, which can be seen in its audit features and performance.

The tool needs to develop a better audit control mechanism.

Even if you have some technical agreement with Microsoft, the technical support of the solution won't help you. The support needs to be improved.

I have been using SQL Server for eight years. I am an end-user of the solution.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The scalability features of the product are simple for me to use.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around five percent of the people in my company use the tool.

I rate the technical support a five to six out of ten.

Neutral

I have worked with Microsoft Entra ID Protection for ten years. I also use Microsoft Defender.

Over the other solutions of the market, I started to use SQL Server since it is available for free and is more secure, while offering good performance. SQL Server offers good performance even over Elasticsearch, or maybe the others open-source database products.

The product's initial setup phase is very easy. On a scale of one to ten, if one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the setup phase a ten.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in a few hours.

My company's in-house team carried out the product's deployment process.

The tool is not something that helps with the cost saving part, but I can say that is a practical tool to use.

On a scale of one to ten, when one is cheap and ten is an expensive solution, I rate the product price as seven. The product is expensive.

The tool's integration capabilities are very good. We don't have any problems.

I don't have any idea about how the product can be used for AI-driven projects because we don't use AI.

I don't recommend the tool to others. I recommended free products because they are tools that offer high performance.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Our main use cases involve using the tool for the database engine. We have a small team in our environment that develops and uses this database for data storage. The data collected by our application is stored in this database.

We use SQL Server for various data management scenarios. It allows us to query data, some of which spans over twenty years. We generate reports and perform analyses using this tool. It also comes with backup and recovery tools, which are essential features of the database engine.

Regarding integration, the solution works well for different courses without any issues. However, if we want to add machine learning and AI capabilities for business analytics, that's an area where improvements could be made.

As for security features, I believe additional security enforcement is needed. You have to implement extra measures on top of what's already there. We understand that the built-in security isn't as robust as expected, so additional solutions are necessary to enhance security.

I have been using the product for 16 years. 

Regarding performance and scalability, we've been using this tool with over 20 years of data. Despite the large amount of data, it's still efficient and effective. We can query the data and perform various tasks without problems, as it serves as our main repository. For our specific use case, it's very effective in decision-making. Depending on their requirements, other organizations might choose different solutions like SQL, Oracle, Postgres, or MongoDB. They can use whatever solution fits their use case best, but this one works very well for us. The solution is stable. 

The solution is globally well-known. It's scalable and has good integrability. You can interface with it using different APIs; some solutions can connect directly with the engine. So, from that perspective, we don't face any issues.

The tool has vendor and partner support. However, we support ourselves. 

SQL Server's deployment is easy. 

We did the deployment in-house. 

The tool is very profitable for us. We initially acquired this solution for development purposes. We have small teams that develop applications using SQL Server as the back-end database engine.

I rate the overall product a ten out of ten since it meets our requirements. Advice for others considering this solution depends on their specific requirements. They must consider whether they need Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle Database, SAP Database engine, or something else. Their particular needs will determine the best choice. In general, though, I would recommend Microsoft SQL Server. Anyone can acquire and use it based on their requirements. However, as I mentioned earlier, some security and performance improvements may be needed.

We use the solution to install different databases.

We were using SQL Server as a major database in our organization. We partitioned the data in such a way for a more extended period, and our archival process may manage that.

We mostly use linking servers and several applications; one pulls data from another. Thus, we created a Linked Server and implemented a replication algorithm to facilitate data transfer between different sources.

The solution’s pricing and integration could be improved.

I have been using SQL Server for 20 years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a 9 out of 10.

More than 1000 concurrent users are using this solution. We use horizontal and vertical data partitioning, allowing us to manage and distribute data across tables efficiently. Additionally, we use sharding for certain databases to handle large datasets effectively.

Support is good. We never had any problem with the support.

Compared with other databases like Oracle, SQL Server stands out due to its robust parallel processing capabilities. It is well-suited for handling large volumes of data. Oracle is preferred in enterprise scenarios with big databases because of its support.

The initial setup is easy and takes around 15-20 minutes.

We use data instances to deploy SQL Server in some cases. We had the static deployment.

We used Windows authentication to ensure more secure communication with the server. The entire request was encrypted with a server certificate, providing point-to-point security for our application. Additionally, when storing sensitive information such as credit card details or specific premises, we ensured it was encrypted in transit and at rest.

The SQL Server interface is better than that of Postgres.

We needed query optimization and data analysis to enhance query performance. Based on the database, there were many stable participants when the load was very high. We marked some of the queries for optimization to achieve better performance. We devised a plan, including creating more indexes, to improve the overall performance of the SQL Server. These were the steps we took to enhance the performance of the SQL server.

It is more compatible with customer service than any other database.

Overall, I rate the solution a 9 out of 10.

We use Microsoft SQL Server as our main database. We implement our solutions to the client site, providing the machines and the SQL Server license depending on their requirements.

The SQL Server is being deployed on-prem. Most of our clients are from the pharmaceutical industry. If there is a physical database, they want a self-hosted server always on-premises. However, the market is slowly adapting to cloud servers. Scalability and security have increased, so now people are going with cloud servers like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. Most of our clients are hosted on-premises and they have their own server, so we don't go with any cloud server. However, we are planning to move ahead with cloud servers for many of our clients.

The replication feature, user interface, reporting services, and notification services are really good. They are providing SQL Profiler and sqlcmd as their integrated software, so we don't find it difficult to integrate any of our third-party applications with MS SQL because all of them support MS SQL very clearly. As a part of optimization, it is good for processing huge amounts of data.

Performance could be improved. There could be more support toward PHP-based websites and toward providing direct plugins for connections, and the related services or application services could be improved. The user interface could be improved so that someone with less knowledge could easily integrate and use that particular module software.

In the next release, I would like to see a separate tool provided to schedule backup or implement backup solutions on any of the servers that Microsoft has installed. This would be a small utility which I could open and point out the backup parts as well as the type of backup I want. Once I decide the time and set it up, it should be able to connect everything and then accordingly run that back up on an automated basis. 

Right now, people are making their own utilities to do that same thing, but it would be helpful if we could get it directly from Microsoft. Apart from this, it would be helpful to have small plugins or API-based connections, which could be used for integrating MS SQL with different platforms.

I have been using MS SQL Server for 11 years, from the very first day of my job. MS SQL is widely used because its compatibility is good, especially with the .NET Framework because most are Microsoft products. The integration and the response are good, especially if you have huge amounts of data.

Now in the market, there are NoSQL options like MongoDB and Hadoop. Previously, there were pretty much three main databases: MS SQL, Oracle, and MySQL. MySQL was mostly used for small software, but many enterprise software were using MySQL because of the configuration, the compatibility, and the performance.

If you're using platforms like ASP.NET and C#, then you will want MS SQL Server because enterprise-level Microsoft provides many features like analytics services, reporting services, notification services, and now they're providing Microsoft Azure integration services.

MS SQL is very stable. However, the corruption of databases needs to be handled more accurately. If I'm using MS SQL Server and my server accidentally restarts or one of my machines restarts accidentally, then usually the MDB or the MDF file is corrupted. That corruption of files should be handled more efficiently because the client loses most of the data. Of course, the backup plan should be more efficient, putting less load on the server. That needs to be improved and more optimized.

Scalability is good. We have worked on almost 25 loads of data and 35 loads of records in a month. Most were working fine, but after time the process slows down a bit. In MS SQL, the initial 70% would work fine, but when the database starts and the load gets full, it causes slow processing. But considering the cost, features, and compatibility with Microsoft, it's a very stable database.

I have not been in a situation where I required help directly from MS SQL Server because we have our own service team that handles those issues.

Initial setup was a bit complex, but it's doable because it has improved a lot. Previously, it was very hard to install MS SQL. If I had the 2016 version already installed, it allowed me to install 2018 as well. The report features were distributed between two services, and that's where it causes problems.

We implement our solutions to the client site.

For personal websites and personal software that isn't used by more than 100 people, I will always go for MySQL for two reasons: MySQL is free and the enterprise is very low in cost.

Oracle Enterprise is another option, but the cost is high when you consider that MySQL is free.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

Microsoft's modules are really good. The syntax used for running the query is really easy. Their options for concurrency and locking are good, as well as their prices. They have created separate models such as distribution services and replication services. They are really good options so that if I want to take that service, I pay for it. If I don't want to, then I don't install it and I don't use it. Modular installation is something that I like about MS SQL Server.

If you have a lot of knowledge about MS SQL Server, you will be able to handle huge amounts of data very efficiently. However, you should make sure that you have regular backup protection. 

The servers which you have to purchase for installing, implementing, or managing MS SQL Server need to be optimized in a better way so that you get optimized performance from MS SQL.

In my role as faculty, I would use it to facilitate having a database with all the teachers needed that are equivalent to Oracle as a database for a small scale project.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is that the metadata is just generalized. Metadata is the way that data is described both for technical aspects of building a database and for the user interfaces. Our metadata is the objects attached to the database, not in the software. 

It helps with moving the design of the database into reality.

The server itself doesn't need much improvement. 

The product overall would benefit from the addition of better tutorials to help master the skills necessary to actually build a project database. Right now, what is available isn't sufficient.

Overall, I would suggest a nice tight integration with the toolset now known as Power BI. It might not even be missing, however, I'm planning to concentrate a lot of my time with the tutorials and I have Power BI loaded onto my HP laptop. bA brilliant student did it for me when she demoed it in a class. I'm going to use that copy of it and have many tutorials to get ready. 

I have enough experience to support students and grad students who use it as a database backend to accomplish their projects.

I have to qualify my experience with "using" the solution. I have done not very much on my own individually or for a client using SQL Server. I have been supportive in the role of facilitator for students to succeed with it and to be observant of how it is very similar in conceptual important ways to my very deep experience with Oracle as the database backend.

That said, I've been familiar with the solution for about ten years now.

What I don't know yet is if it would be stable when being migrated from the scale of a project that would be in a prototype on a small machine, into a much larger environment in order to get ready to go to production. I'm not sure of that experience, whether it's vulnerable or not. I haven't tried it.

However, in my experience, so far, the solution is quite stable. In terms of stability, with Microsoft being so supportive of its success, and so many smart professionals who have the skillsets to use it, that it would be stable. I'm confident about that. It's not a new tool, so stable being defined as it doesn't break down.

In terms of scalability, with the right people supporting it, who have the skills to do so, it would scale up. It's likely to be true in the context of the overall tool called Power BI that Microsoft has released, and which has high credibility among Gardner Group and others about it being available for business intelligence.

The solution isn't used often or widely per se. Not many people, if any, use it regularly due to the fact that an instance of SQL Server is set up only to accomplish a project relevant to a course that needs to have a database. After that, it doesn't stick around. It doesn't last longer than that.

Previous to my position at the university, I worked both as an employee and a consultant and was very much involved with Oracle as a database for years, going back to 1997 and until about 2010.

The initial setup isn't complex. It's certainly straightforward. The downloads and the installs don't all fall apart. It succeeds. The constraint is in the context of the students enabling a SQL Server to run on a laptop. That's a constraint rather than on an actual problem with the hardware server itself. 

Deployment takes, on average, about four hours. After that, you have a somewhat bare-bones server with the capability of running SQL datum to create the data itself or to import it from another database.

Since the solution is only really used for training purposes for classes and isn't meant to exist permanently, there's no one who needs to really maintain it.

I don't recall any help from people in the university who had the knowledge to support a student who was doing it for the course I was teaching. Sometimes these students have plenty of experience in their own professional job and they bring it to class to help succeed with the effort.

I, unfortunately, do not handle licensing, so I don't know what the costs are for the product.

MySQL as a database is sufficient for the scale of the projects that I've been talking about for ht purposes we have currently. PostgreSQL, which I do not personally know very well, is something else we looked at. It's a matter of the scale, generally. When I'm teaching, I'm probably the only member of faculty teaching actual database design in our school of engineering. We only would work on something that I call prototyping. Nothing that would reach for the responsibility of becoming our actual production database. 

In August of last summer, we updated to the latest version of the solution. At least, at that time, it was the latest version.

What the school does in its academics is make a minimum training available for students who want to use it. They can learn how.

Now we're all online. I do not know if the University has SQL Server as the backend for any of its regular production databases. I think it only is a database for students to choose when they need one for a project.

I don't think it has extensive utilization. And in the teaching involved for online learning, I would probably express very lightweight recommendations to try it because we're not on campus. We cannot connect to a real server for a backend in order to do the install on onsite. This is just a COVID-19 in constraint.

If a company is considering utilizing this tool in the future, I would advise that they have someone on staff or in a consulting agreement who really knows the tool, and has succeeded with it.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. It's the right tool for production-ready or enabled databases. It's now equivalent to Oracle.

We use SQL Server for data warehousing or business-intelligent projects. When you leverage the solution with Azure, it's the only database you'll ever need. Oracle is overpriced, but Azure SQL and on-premise SQL are both great products.

The fact that SQL Server fully integrates within the entire Microsoft ecosystem is a plus.

The solution’s initial setup could be complex, requiring some design of how you want to lay everything out and what type of storage you want to put certain things on.

I have been using SQL Server for 25 years.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

Compared to other solutions like MongoDB and MySQL, SQL Server is a scalable solution.

The solution’s technical support is okay.

Positive

Oracle is an expensive relational database, and its configuration can be overly complicated. Oracle is less user-friendly. MySQL is not a relational database, but it's a flat-file database. MongoDB is a free tool that allows you to get what you pay for.

The solution’s initial setup could be complex, requiring some design of how you want to lay everything out and what type of storage you want to put certain things on. It could be complex, but any database platform will have some complexity.

Historically, SQL Server has been much more affordable than Oracle, which is overpriced.

SQL Server can be used for web applications and Dynamics Business Central. Any Azure app will deploy some element of SQL Server. The solution's security features meet our data protection requirements. SQL Server integrates with Microsoft Active Directory, Microsoft Azure, and Microsoft Entra, making it secure. However, since SQL Server is the most popular product, it's also the most popular platform to be hacked.

The solution's data analysis capability, performance monitoring, and error logging are all pretty good. I would recommend SQL Server to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use it for warehouse data management, as well as for statistical reports. It facilitates tabling and query processing while supporting multiple database operations. 

The solution is valuable because it seamlessly extracts reports and enables the collection of information from different tables.

There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to limited compatibility across the platform and restricted performance with massive data sets. Enhancing those two areas would significantly improve the operation. It is important to mention the licensing cost, as well. Optimization of the licensing options to fit different needs and businesses would be of great benefit. 

I have used this solution for ten years. 

It is a robust and stable solution. Its tracking record is reliable and it can handle large volumes of data.

SQL Server offers easy scalability, allowing databases to grow as the data and user base expand. 

Their customer service is great. When we faced certain issues, they solved them fast. There were no problems with communication.

Positive

The initial setup is easy, and integrating the system is okay. The only issue is regarding the customization of the business process of the organization, it might take some time. Ultimately, it depends on the client's specific needs.

SQL Server is an expensive solution. Their pricing structure and licensing options are not budget-friendly, so I believe it is an essential factor to consider when choosing the right product.

It proved to be a great fit for medium-sized enterprises, in terms of the variety of the tools it provides. For bigger projects and specific needs, there might be a need to employ different solutions such as Oracle, and ERP systems. But overall, it works great as a relationship database management system. I would rate it eight out of ten. 

It has all of our data. Our company sells contracts when you buy a car. We sell aftermarket insurance for the tyre, wheel, ding, dent, windshield, etc. When somebody buys a contract, we capture all of that data into a legacy database PostgreSQL, and my task is to incorporate that into our financial platform using T-SQL. So, I write queries, procedures, and views. I use SSIS, and I use SSRS. My job is to get the data into our financial system so that we can process claims, payments, cancellations, and refunds. 

In terms of its version, we're up-to-date. We have version 2019.

This is the heart of the whole company. SQL Server is where all of our financials are. It has all of our data.

I've been using SQL Server for 20 years, and there is nothing that it can't do. It is awesome.

When we are talking about event space architecture, scalability generally comes into play. For example, I might have a hundred thousand transactions a second, and then all of a sudden, I build something that everybody in the world wants. The next thing I know is that I have a million transactions a second. So, to be able to process the throughput, I'd have to scale up, and then when the holidays are over, I'm again down to a hundred thousand transactions, and I want to scale back down. SQL Server is not going to do that. In this way, it is not very scalable. One of the reasons why they want us to use Kafka is so that if we need to, we can do that, but our base program is on SQL Server. So, this is where we would use a Kafka event stack so that if I need more servers, I can just write a command, and I can have more consumers, more brokers, and more producers, and when the holiday season is over, it scales right back down again. SQL Server is not going to do that.

I have been using this solution for 20 years.

We do clustering. If one SQL Server goes down, it automatically goes to another one.

I don't ever need tech support. If it breaks, I can just rebuild it.

They're now using a different database for contracting called Road Runner. I don't know what that is, and how it stores data. I don't know anything about it. 

There is also Postgres. I like SQL Server more than Postgres. That's only because I know SQL Server. I don't know Postgres as well. So, I can't say which one is better because I don't have the same amount of experience in both.

I can bring up a SQL Server in an hour or so and set it up.

In terms of maintenance, the number of people required depends on the need. 
We have a team of DBAs, developers, and UA analysts. We probably have 40 people in our IT area who are maintaining our solution. I'm just the developer. I'm the guy who makes the magic happen, but without other people collecting the information that I need to make the magic happen, I'm stuck. Without the guy who is an expert in permissions, partitioning, and performance tuning, I'm stuck. So, it's definitely a team effort. You can do it all, but you don't want to do it all because then you're running your head off, and you don't really get good at anything. It would be a jack of all trades, master of none type of scenario.

You will seldom find a database that was designed correctly. Just because you got a poor-quality database doesn't mean that you're going to get a better database anywhere else. You rarely get to build a thing on your own. Usually, you inherit somebody else's stuff. So, the challenging thing is working with what you have while trying to implement a better solution. My only advice is to be patient.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. I wouldn't give anything a 10 because I don't have that kind of knowledge, but right now, it does what I need it to do.