SQL Server Reviews

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.

There are three variations available within SQL Server, the first one being that you can migrate your SQL instances from an on-premises version to the cloud. Second, you have an option to modernize the SQL platform and move to managing instances on the cloud. Third, SQL Server has an offering called Azure SQL, where you can deploy Azure instances in a flexible manner, and it can automatically scale up or down, depending upon the requirements. There are specific features you can license, as per the CPU cores and transactions you deal with in your business. There are various models of the tool that are available.

Features like autoscaling, business continuity, and security are beneficial. The tool's compatibility with almost all of the enterprise-class applications is also beneficial for users.

The tool is secure in nature. The security portfolios are changing day by day, and new security bugs are being released. The tool responds to users' requirements to deal with bugs and security issues. I feel that the tool should offer more security features to be made available. The security packages to be followed by users should be consolidated and sent to customers every day or every week so that they can have the security features updated. If security packages are available in a consolidated manner every month, it will be beneficial. I think there are certain areas of concern regarding the backup of the product that I have heard from my company's engineers. Sometimes, the tool doesn't support all the native features, and because of this, our company has to customize it to meet our requirements, which is a challenging process for our company's engineers. The tool has to be user-friendly- in terms of supporting the backup features and adapting to various backup environments.

I have been using SQL Server for 5 years.

It is a very stable solution. Hundreds and thousands of customers have adopted SQL Server since it is a very stable solution.

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

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

My company deals with organizations where the solution is used, with between 200 and 7,000 users.

The solution's technical support is available twenty-four hours, seven days a week, with the specific SLAs associated with the product. Apart from Microsoft, there are hundreds of solution integrators and managed service providers available worldwide who provide support for SQL servers.

The product's initial setup phase is very straightforward and nothing complex. Anybody who has a basic knowledge of SQL and Azure should be able to deploy the product.

SQL Server has a clear set of procedures to help users deploy the product. Initially, to identify your sizing or capacity requirements, after which you pick up the right setup from the cloud and then configure it with the right level of storage and the right level of CPU and memory before choosing the version of SQL you want to deploy, post which you will be ready to use the tool.

You can opt for a pay-as-you-go model, which allows you to pay as per your usage, which is a little expensive. You also have the option to purchase for a period of a year or three, which comes with discounted pricing. Depending upon your usage, you can use the pay-as-you-go model for a short period of time. For longer projects, we can opt for one-year or a three-year license.

Speaking about a project where SQL Server was essential in archiving our company's objectives, I feel that customers generally like to optimize their licenses while making sure they get the right level of operational excellence out of it. When you run the tool on an on-premises version, you are dependent upon operational resources or human resources to manage it. When the tool is in the cloud, it is managed by Azure, where you can optimize or effectively use your resources, which can provide you with cost advantage or cost optimization. As the tool is flexible in nature, you don't have to monitor it all the time for performance and capacity issues. The tool automatically scales and provides you with the required level of scalability, and it also has built-in DR and business continuity features. Even in the case of a disaster, it automatically moves to a DR location and provides you with the right level of business continuity and availability.

The product has built-in scalability features. Depending upon the number of transactions or usage, it automatically scales itself. You can also define specific parameters for how the tool needs to scale or how to respond to the requirements of the users. The tool has a good amount of scalability features.

Azure provides funding for doing a PoC, so if you are a little apprehensive about using it, then you can reach out to a local Azure partner, who will be able to help you with providing the funding from Azure. Azure's funding part is valid for a period of two to three weeks, so you can actually deploy it and play around to ensure that you are comfortable with what you are doing. Once you are satisfied with the results of the tool, you can go ahead and migrate or modernize your databases. I suggest others use the funding from Azure so that you can get a touch and feel for the product.

SQL Server comes under the category of enterprise tools. Most enterprise tools have connectivity available. If there is no connectivity available in the enterprise tools you use, you can develop APIs to integrate with other tools.

The benefits attached to the solution revolve around the fact that it offers scalability and reliability. The tool also helps with fault tolerance while offering business continuity features. The tool offers its users a fully secure environment. In banking, federal government, or insurance firms, I feel that the tool ensures that its users are fully secured, and you can apply whatever regulatory governance you want to apply to the tool.

 I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

SQL Server, a widely adopted database management system, is utilized across numerous sectors. Initially competing with Oracle and Db2, SQL Server has gained popularity. It serves as the backend database for a variety of applications. 

The tool's support needs to be improved. 

I have been using the product for 25 years. 

Performance issues are a common concern when using SQL Server. However, it's important to recognize that the problem may not solely lie with SQL Server. It is stable. My team has four members using it. 

I find that using SQL Server is more cost-effective than Oracle. Although Oracle remains the top choice regarding power and stability, SQL Server is steadily catching up. We still have dedicated administrators for Oracle maintenance, whereas SQL Server requires less maintenance. While I'm not entirely clear on all the technical features and comparisons, Oracle generally offers more advanced features, such as table-locking options.

The tool's deployment is easy. 

We also have a data warehouse. This warehouse feeds into Power BI for data presentation. Currently, we're in the process of transitioning because we have various teams and solutions in place.

The tool serves the purpose of managing all the data within a system. It is utilized extensively for storing, processing transactions, and conducting analysis.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. Its ability to integrate with other products is good. The tool is popular and easy to manage. You can find resources easily to manage it. 

The solution is used as our backend database for our in-house applications. 

It's consolidated all of our Microsoft Access databases.

Having everything in one centralized set of databases is the most valuable feature.

Over the years additional features, data warehousing, cubing, just better performance and better manageability in terms of the actual Microsoft SQL Server AppLINK console.

I have experience with SQL Server. 

It is a highly stable solution. It was our database of choice because of its reliability. It just does what it says on the tin. We've never experienced any issues with it. I've never experienced any issues with it crashing or anything like that. 

The solution is very scalability. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. 

Their technical team is very efficient. 

Positive

We switched to SQL for the reliability and scalability.

The initial setup is cumbersome as it's very menu-driven. The deployment takes half a day's time. We run it on a virtual machine or virtual service. We build a virtual server. We downloaded the ISO from Microsoft's licensing website.

I rate the setup an eight out of ten. 

The deployment was done by a single person, in-house. 

The SQL server is affordable. I rate the pricing a five out of ten. 

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten. 

We do data warehousing on it. We have databases on it. A lot of our applications use it for transactions and data.

We're using version 2019. We're trying to migrate to 2021 because 2023 is not yet that stable.

It works fine in terms of performance and stability.

I would like Microsoft to evolve SQL Server because stateful databases dying are in a way. We would like to find out if it can absorb Hadoop and other similar things. They should make it useful for data mining. Data is evolving forever, and how we store it is also changing constantly. So, SQL Server also needs to change.

I have been using this solution for two decades.

It works fine. There are no issues.

It is scalable. There are a lot of users. There are over 300 applications using this solution. Each application has its own users. In the technical team, there are about 13 people working with it.

I logged a ticket recently when I had an issue with the data manager. Their support wasn't that bad. I would rate them an eight out of 10.

I've used different solutions. There are times when I use Db2, and there are times when I use Oracle Database. Oracle beats SQL Server when it comes to procedures and process optimization.

The initial setup is easy. It takes 30 minutes at the most. What limits you is just your infrastructure in terms of:

• Do you have enough room on those servers to process that stuff?
• Do you have enough RAM resources?
• Do you have enough storage?
  

I can do it by myself.

It is annual.

I would recommend it to other users. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We use the solution for data quality purposes like checking, testing, and writing its cases using data validity and quality measurements.

The valuable features are Excel integration, writing a query in SQL Server, exporting the data, and copying the data.

When transferring data from the SQL Server to Excel, the data types are not copied correctly. This issue might be associated with the formatting of the data types. Specifically, the data types for dates and timestamps have not been copied correctly.

In SQL, as with other databases, abbreviations are commonly used to simplify tasks such as writing queries or commands.

I have been using SQL Server for 3 years. We are using V18.0 of the solution.

The product is stable. The community is big.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

The data warehouse engine should be scalable.  It's not scalable. We use it every single day.

I rate the solution's scalability a three out of ten.

I have used Oracle Server.

The initial setup is straightforward. The connection to the database is not straightforward. There are many ways to connect to the database. It may be tricky to choose which way to connect.

I rate it seven or eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The solution is good for a transaction database, but its performance is not very good. One or two persons are needed to maintain an SQL server.

I recommend the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven 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. 

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.