SQL Server Reviews

We are a solution provider and SQL Server is one of the products that we implement for our clients. People use SQL Server primarily for business intelligence.

If you have Navision or Dynamics AX, and you need a data warehouse to be able to improve the performance of your business, then that is what our company does.

For this review I will describe one of our clients. They are a large company that owns convenience stores, and they do several billion euros a year in business world wide. The convenience stores are located in large travel hubs like airports, train stations, office buildings, and large supermarkets. Everyone who flies/travels a lot has shopped in their stores. In Romania, they have 300 stores and sell between 300,000 and 500,000 items a day across the network.

This customer is very mature and we have provided a lot of features. The most important is forecasting. When the store manager comes to the store in the morning they receive an order proposal dashboard from us. We will have taken the data from the close of business the night before, then built a forecast for the manager to help decide what to order the next day. This a very important application. We are able to calculate the orders across the network better than the ERP can.

Another use case has to do with the actual items in convenience stores. They sell products such as cigarettes, drinks, sandwiches, magazines, and more. In Eastern Europe, there's still a high percentage of people that smoke cigarettes, and what you want to do, as a retailer, is negotiate your contracts with the large vendors.

There are people called buyers, and they sign contracts with the major suppliers. Our use case provides a tablet with a very rich dashboard to show everything that is going on between the buyer and the vendors that they buy from. In those negotiations, especially when dealing with very larger vendors, you sell millions of euros of goods, such as cigarettes, each year. The goal is that you are trying to get the vendor to give you a lower price. At the same time, the vendor is trying to get you to pay a higher price. That's business.

In that discussion, the person with the best data gets the best price. Naturally, it's a high-conflict discussion and you have to have a way of taking out the conflict and replacing it with a more logical, rational argument. The person with the best data wins the argument and gets the best price. That capability is worth a lot of money. Although only a dozen people use it, it's one of the top applications used by that customer.

One of the most valuable features is partitioning because it helps to distribute the workload. Consider that you sell 400,000 or 500,000 items each day, and there are 10 years worth of history stored in the data warehouse. That is a lot of transactions. Partitioning allows you to split it up into smaller pieces so that the machine can be easily deal with it.

By default, SQL Server has relatively poor partitioning, and it only works properly if you buy the Enterprise Edition, which costs about $14,000 USD per core. Partitioning was only introduced in 2005 and because we were working with it from before that time, we had to do partitioning manually. With Standard Edition, the list price is $3,700 per core. So we still do partitioning manually.

With SQL Server SE, for a $50,000 USD or so license, we can get a 16 core server and manage data warehouses in the 15-20TB range. It runs really well.

By comparison, we had a large telecom client in 2004. We used an 18CPU Sun Server running Oracle and 15TB of EMC disk. That cost us nearly $2.5 million USD. Nowadays, we can do a great deal of what we did back then with $100,000 USD. This is amazing because in places like Eastern Europe where you have constrained budgets SE is a really good option. It's actually cheaper than running MySQL.

SQL Server is very popular in this region because of the price.

From version 2014 to version 2016, the performance really improved. We also moved to new hardware, resulting in a four-times speed-up of the processing. Now we can supply a 16-core, 15TB, data warehouse loading hundreds of thousands of transactions per day for $100,000 purchase or cheaper via hosting partners. The price of SE for the features it provides is why we use it so often.

There are a lot of things that it doesn't do in terms of business intelligence. However, you can live without a lot of them.

A lot of people want AI/ML features, but SQL Server does not really support that space. R is included but it's kind of clunky. That said, you're not going to do AI/ML with SQL Server because you're going to use Synapse, Databricks, or another similar tools.

SQL Server doesn't have proper bitmap indexing, a proper columnar database version, or proper implementation of materialized views. For example, if you want to do a materialized view, you can only do one on the base tables. You can't do a materialized view on top of another view. For us that makes materialized views useless.

I have been working with SQL Server for approximately 25 years. We began working with SQL Server version 6.

SQL Server is solid as a rock now. It never used to be. It was quite flakey in the past.

In fact, databases as a whole have matured very well. I used to work for IBM in the 1990s and I sold DB2. We had our share of problems, that's for sure.

Many of my customers are using SQL Server 2019.

Today, a 15TB data warehouse is not very big. However, if you consider this customer has 300 stores nationally, selling up to half a million items per day, then that's a fairly substantial customer.

There are bigger customers that you need to worry about. They want more products and more speed, but they have more money. 

The bottom line is that SQL Server is still an SMP database. Because we're only talking about data warehousing, there are some fairly simple rules to apply to get it to scale up quite well.

You can put two billion rows in a partitioned table. This customers largest partitioned table is more than three billion rows. That is 10 years of stock history. We use that for forecasting. That's quite a lot when you're only paying $50,000 for the database license. A similar machine, 15 years ago, would cost approximately $2 million.

Clearly, you can't compare how well a $100,000 SQL Server running on Windows compares with a shiny new million-dollar Yellowbrick server. They are completely different classes.

Ultimately SQL Server SE is most suitable for a small to medium-sized business. In a data warehousing scenario, you can do a very passable job with SQL Server SE for enterprises up to half a million transactions per day.

The technical support that Microsoft provides is great. They have forums and things like that, and you can talk directly to a Microsoft SQL Server engineer on their forums if you have a problem. But we very rarely have serious problems. I have only spoken with a Microsoft engineer with a serious problem once in the last 17 years. That is amazing really. On one project I did in 2000 we actually had a paid microsoft engineer on site we had so many problems! 

Positive

I have been working in IT for 40 years and I've worked with all of the major databases for BI. These include Oracle, IBM Db2, Netezza, Sybase IQ, PostgreSQL, and MySQL.

PostgreSQL and MySQL are available to use free of charge. However, there is more to do in order to get things to work on those databases. This extra work costs money. Over a five-year period, SQL Server SE is cheaper.

I used to sell a lot of Sybase IQ to telecoms. The only choices were Oracle, Teradata and Sybase IQ at the high end. Oracle and Teradata were very  expensive. Sybase IQ would run on a bunch of different platforms and we were charging $50,000 USD per core. We sold a lot of IQ.

Nowadays, we can do a lot of what we used to do on Sybase IQ on SQL Server SE for $3,700 per core. It's a big difference.

When you're living in Eastern Europe you can see that other databases have some better features, but you've still got to talk to the chief financial officer and ask for the money.

Today, we're working mostly with SQL Server SE because, in Romania, SQL Server is very popular because it is cheaper than the other solutions.

If you know what you're doing then setting up SQL Server as a data warehouse is trivial. If you're setting it up properly, and know how to do so, it takes about a week to complete the deployment. The bit that takes the time is the creation of the partitions.

We implement this solution for our customers, although we do not support the hardware. The hosting companies are available for that. When we move to cloud-based deployment, that will be handled by companies like Microsoft with Azure.

Our customers will also have the choice of a local hosting company that is cheaper than Azure. Most of our clients host their cloud-based solutions there because it's cheaper. They also look after the hardware, operating systems, and other such things. What we see is a remote desktop sitting on top of a server, and that is the starting point for us to deploy. If we want more memory or more CPU cores then we talk to the hosting company.

Pretty much all of our deployments run on VMs.

In terms of maintenance, it's normal. SQL Server has patches and updates. The hosting company is responsible for applying those. Then, you have new releases.

When there is a new release, we have to sit down and plan for those because they need to be properly tested. Occasionally, new releases cause problems and don't work.

When automatic updates happen, we don't let the system just update itself. We have particular times where we maintain things. We have to pick a slot where we cannot have people using it, which is usually on a Sunday or something else like that. Then, we'll apply the updates.

There are many areas we get very good ROI for BI projects.  There are things that SQL Server SE is not going to do. If you want those things then you'll have to pay more money. But for up to 500,000 business transactions going in to the data warehouse per day? There is really nothing that some performance tuning will not get around.

SQL Server SE is popular in Romania because of the price.

It doesn't do everything but for the price, it's fine.

The price for the Standard Edition is approximately $3,700 USD per core. Once you include technical support, SQL Server is cheaper than PostgreSQL and MySQL.

It is relevant to consider that the query optimizer works differently between the Standard Edition and the Enterprise Edition. The Standard Edition is cheaper but the Enterprise Edition has better performance. This is something that Microsoft had confirmed when we switched from 2008EE to 2014SE.

Another thing to consider is that some applications require a certain edition of the solution. Power BI Mobile, for example, will only run with the Enterprise Edition.

Compared to other databases, SQL Server SE rates ten out of ten in price to performance and features. If you wanted to compare SQL Server SE to YellowBrick for features SE is 5 or 6 and YellowBrick is a 10. 

That said, Yellowbrick will cost a million dollars compared to $50,000 for SQL Server. It's not a fair comparison.

So nowadays we don't spend much time looking at other databases. If a customer wants PostgreSQL we will do that. If they want Oracle we will do that. But we prefer to work on SQL Server. It's also actually easier to work on.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is specific to data warehousing. I would recommend implementing manual partitioning. You'll be able to use the Standard Edition and you'll save money. If you've got plenty of money, implement the database partitioning and pay the extra $10,000 USD per core. With manual partitioning, you'll get 90% of the EE performance for $10,000 less per core. For a 16-core SQL Server, that's a savings of $160,000.

Considering SQL Server SE, and what it does for the price, I would rate this solution a ten 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.

SQL Server is easy to use. As a Microsoft product, it has an intuitive and user-friendly interface.

The product performance can become slow when the data reaches sizes like a terabyte.

The product is stable. 

Our organization has a maximum of 100 SQL Server users. The scalability needs improvement.

We have used other solutions such as PostgreSQL, MySQL, and Oracle. 

SQL Server is often chosen for Windows platforms due to its compatibility. For other development environments, like PHP or Java, we might select MySQL or PostgreSQL, respectively.

The setup process is straightforward. It involves running the setup file, configuring general settings, setting up a user account, and creating a database. After that, you can create tables within the database and start using it.

The product's price is reasonable. It requires a one-time license purchase, unlike Azure SQL, which operates on a subscription basis.

SQL Server's performance is good enough for medium-sized applications. The security features are adequate and effective.

I rate it a seven out of ten. 

We use SQL Server to query our database for specific reports we need to write for our clients.

The solution's most valuable feature is that we can set up redundant databases and replication in the databases. SQL Server has very good integration capabilities.

The solution’s pricing is high.

I have been using SQL Server for ten years.

SQL Server is a very stable solution,

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is quite good. Around 30 users use the solution in our organization. Currently, I use SQL Server about once a week.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a nine out of ten.

The solution was implemented by an in-house team in a couple of hours.

SQL Server has dramatically improved our ROI. We couldn't do without it, and it's been a very valuable tool.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to users looking for any form of transactional database or commercial database.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution as the backend for the application.

SQL Server is a backend for software products that our company writes and distributes.

SQL Server is easy to use, but there is a great deal of complexity that you can dive into to use it to its best. Also, it integrates well with other platforms.

SQL Server should make the pricing simpler. It should add simplified load-balancing features.

I have been using SQL Server for 24 years.

There's a reporting database feature in SQL Server, but running multiple instances on the same box would be beneficial. That's one limitation we've encountered. Many of our customers utilize a hosting provider that offers multi-tenant SQL Servers, but we cannot implement a multi-tenant reporting database. 

The solution’s scalability is good.

There are a lot of different deployment options. The default options will work pretty well. We have to change a few things for our setup. Deployment is not at all long. It takes a couple of minutes. It took a long time for the first time because I had to go back and redo it and change the configuration, but it runs pretty smoothly now.

The deployment process follows: mount the ISO and run a script. That script retrieves some entries from a table and creates several instances based on that table using active directory SQL Server accounts, which is an out-of-the-box option. There are a lot of features that you can add to the setup to make it quieter. We've automated it so we can spin up an instance as needed for development processes.

Deployment was done in-house.

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

SQL Server is easy to manage. 

The tool needs to improve its pricing and technical support. 

I have been working with the product for ten years. 

I rate the product’s stability a seven out of ten.

I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. 

I rate the tool's deployment a seven out of ten. Deployment time depends on the customer's environment. 

I rate the product’s pricing a six out of ten.

Our clients are from small, medium, and enterprise businesses. It helps users to manage their data. 

I rate the overall product an eight 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. 

We use it for the banking database. It is for banking software, accounting software, and human resource software that we develop to run our bank.

In our production environment, we are using SQL Server 2014 Enterprise, but we also have an installation of SQL Server 2019 for our development environment.

It is secure, and it is fast. For our present database size, we are using the Always-On feature on SQL Server so that our transactions are replicated among three servers. If one server goes down, we can find the data from other servers. We have benefited from this feature.

We use SQL Server Reporting Services, and it is very good. We use scheduled jobs to transfer reports from one server to another server. 

It needs to be improved to handle big data for large volumes of transactions for big industries. As compared to Oracle Database, SQL Server is not suitable for big data or large organizations where the database size could be more than 100 GB or more. In our country, for a large database and a large volume of transactions, we normally use Oracle Database. Most of the large banks are shifting from SQL Server to Oracle Database because of its slowness. 

We have been using this solution since 2008.

For big organizations, like ours, SQL Server is very good in terms of reliability and security. It has the Always-On feature and many more features. I appreciate its reliability.

I don't know whether SQL Server can support large organizations where the database size is more than 100 GB. It might be because of SQL Server, or it might be because of the programming of the software vendor, but a lot of people think that it is a problem with SQL Server. It can't handle a large amount of data or large data size.

In terms of its usage, about 90% of our applications are running on the SQL Server database. We have around 1,600 users for our software, and all the applications are connected to the SQL Server database.

So far, we didn't ask for any technical support.

We used a flat-file database earlier, and since 2008, we have been using SQL Server. We started with SQL Server 2008 edition, and later on moved to 2012, 2014, and 2019.

We switched because there were many problems in the flat-file database. There was so much inconsistency. Some files were updated, and some files were not. There were big network issues. SQL Server has eliminated such issues, so either all transactions happen or nothing happens. This is a Relational Database Management System, and this is at another level compared to the flat-file database.

SQL Server is very user-friendly and very simple. It is very comfortable for us. We have been using it for a long time, so it is not a problem at all.

The deployment of our production server took less than 15 days.

It was done in-house with the help of our vendor. They have Microsoft-certified people. I have also worked on SQL Server for a long time, so we have an idea of how to migrate from one database to another. It was not a big issue for us.

At present, we have five people for its maintenance.

We are using licensed software for our environment. We have the Enterprise license, and we have a standard additional license.

As compared to Oracle Database, SQL Server is less expensive. For mid-sized organizations, SQL Server is completely all right, but people say it can't support large organizations with more than 2,000 users.

Before implementing SQL Server, you need to learn the concept, design, architecture, and data types of a relational database. You can learn it from YouTube. It is step-based, and you can install it. After that, you can migrate your existing SQL Server to the new SQL Server, depending on the size of the data, data architecture, and data type. 

I would rate it an eight out of 10 because I'm satisfied with SQL Server. It is working fine.