SQL Server Reviews

Our correlation and relational databases are on Microsoft SQL Server.

The company uses two platforms: MySQL and Microsoft SQL Server. Some applications are on MySQL, and some applications are SQL Server. 

I have pretty much worked all my life in Microsoft SQL Server.

I am in the process of creating a data strategy to consolidate multiple siloed data centers. Once my plan is finalized and approved, then we are going to execute it on the Microsoft platform.

• Performance-wise, it is an excellent tool.
• It is a Microsoft product, so there's a lot of support. 
• It's not a new tool; it has been around for a while. 
• It is one of the top five relational databases in the market. 
• It is very user-friendly.
• There are a lot of resources available for it.

I would like to see native plugins built for other platforms versus having to buy third-party plugins to tap into S3 buckets and AWS Cloud. Right now, it does not have those built-in plugins.

I know that they are building SQL Server for the Unix environment, which is in the beta version, and not out yet. This has been a long time wish for a lot of people. Once that is out, we'll be able to tell how diversified they have become in regards to other platforms.

It hasn't 100 percent on scalability and third-party plugins.

It is one of the most stable relational databases out there.

With the new versions and Azure, which is in the cloud, these do accommodate scalability. Until the 2014 version, the scalability wasn't there, but from the 2016 version and above, I think they have taken all these scalability features into consideration.

I have not used technical support for Microsoft with my current company. I have used them in the past. It depends on the tier of support that was purchased by the company as to the level of support that you receive.

Our company has probably been using this solution since it was released.

It is expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Since we are a cloud-based company, there is AWS pricing on top of the SQL Server pricing. The Enterprise Edition can typically sell from around $1000 dollars a month, which is not cheap. Then, there is an additional one-time Windows cost, based on the code, which can go anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 for the license.

From my perspective, the two vendors for this are Microsoft and Amazon (AWS).

They are working on making it better with every release, compared to Oracle Db2 and IBM.

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. It's not cheaper any more, like it used to be, but if you can afford it, then it's the best.

When I select a vendor, from a tool perspective, I make sure that they have full support available, have been in the market for awhile, and the solution/application is stable.

From an open source perspective, like MySQL, Aurora, and MongoDB, they have done a great job in making a robust database container.

We use SQL Server to store applications. The SQL Server manages various functions, such as digital innovation projects, document storage, handling login credentials, and maintaining authentication and authorization through the database.

Unlike MySQL, SQL Server is advantageous because it allows the execution of stored procedures and commands. It's easy to understand, run, and manage. Also, Microsoft frequently updates SQL Server, quickly resolving issues in new versions.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

My team has five users. 

The tool's deployment is easy. 

SQL Server offers three versions. You can get a free trial for 30 days. 

The solution is easy to understand if you know basic queries. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

There are many applications between Microsoft and SQL. Most are in the legacy direction, but some are more modern databases with those application requirements. We have used it for multi-purposes such as back-office products applications and cloud office environments.

The solution is easy to use, has rich feature sets, and is business-oriented. 

They could improve the solution by allowing more portability between on-premise and the cloud.

More improvements can be brought around hyper-threading. Like we see in work engines of hyper-threading. It is very complex in terms of the way they do it. If it was via CPU or something else, it would be much easier.

In a future release, they could improve by expanding their form base capabilities.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

I have found the solution to be very stable.

The solution is scalable.

The support is good for the solution.

We used Oracle and DB2 in the past.

Initially, the installation took a while. We have started deploying configurations that are now standardized. We have automated it, but it can still be problematic. For the most part, the installation is now quite easy. Additionally, The way they have many configurable parameters that influence performance is in a way problematic.

We did the deployment of the solution and we have a team of 15 people doing the deployment and maintenance.

The licenses are really expensive. Their licensing model should be more simplistic.

I would recommend this solution to others and we plan to keep using it in the future.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

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 tool to store and retrieve application data. It allows for storage via multiple threads and separates threads.

I find query optimization to be highly valuable for data management. Additionally, drag-and-drop query creation greatly facilitates data management tasks.

The solution's stability can be improved. 

I can't provide a definitive comment on stability, but I'd lean towards the positive side and rate it around a seven out of ten. I've encountered more efficient and faster databases that deserve a higher rating. Therefore, I'm hesitant to rate SQL Server a nine out of ten for stability.

The number of users depends on the primary master database, which handles the core data. The solution typically serves around two million users interacting with the primary master database. In terms of deployment and maintenance, not much is needed. I'm quite familiar with databases, so that I can handle it myself. Even without guides, setting up and maintaining the system is manageable.

The deployment process was fairly simple, especially with SQL Server and other modern products. The interfaces are easy to understand, and the configuration is straightforward. Typically, you need to configure a node endpoint for the JDBC driver if you're connecting from a client.

Currently, we don't heavily rely on SQL Server for our projects. Most applications are developed for evaluation or quick setup and checking methods. For production-grade deployments, we primarily use PostgreSQL.

The database architecture plays a crucial role in data-heavy applications. I've worked with databases, particularly in telecom, requiring extremely real-time operations like quick authentication and seamless data transfer for calls. These use cases demand quick responsiveness and scalability, especially during high-traffic events like sports matches. Scaling up certain database nodes becomes essential to handle the increased volume of data.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.I haven't personally used the .NET framework, but it seems to be more elaborate compared to Java or Python.

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.