SQL Server Reviews

The product enables us to grant access to users. The product is easy to use.

The pricing could be better.

I have been using the solution for about four years.

We did not have any issues with stability. The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. Four other users have access to the server. We are not planning to increase the usage.

The setup is straightforward. The deployment does not take very long.

We did not use an integrator for the deployment. Our in-house team has been able to deploy the tool well.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I recommend the solution to others. The solution is straightforward to work with. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I have SQL Server running in an on-premise environment, but we are testing it out on the cloud. We are trying out using APIs to access a database. SQL Server creates a lot of opportunities for us. While some of the larger companies have Oracle, SQL Server is more common in Peru. I'm responsible for administration and implementation, including configuration and data replication.

Our biggest problem with SQL Server is latency. The communication between the cloud and the on-premises environment is slow. The data needs to be encrypted for security, and you have to exchange data certificates between environments. You can adjust the configuration to improve performance, but it would be nice if SQL Server had some templates to resolve problems.

I have been working with SQL Server for 10 years. 

I worked on Oracle Database for four years. In the last year, I have been working with various cloud databases, including Cosmos DB and DynamoDB in AWS and Azure.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10. SQL Server is an inexpensive solution. I recommend it if the project isn't sensitive. SQL is similar to Oracle and integrates well with tools in the cloud environment. The difference is that Oracle is for data solutions where there is replication and moderation.

We are using the latest version.

We can use the solution for the same application. On the database side we have Microsoft SQL and on the operating system side we have 2019.

I want to see one improvement and this involves the replication between the DC and DR. We have limited options at the moment and it does not lend sufficient support for the number of databases. This means we have a huge number of databases, topping approximately 2,000. For the moment, this particular replication is not supported by SQL. 

The support number of databases needs to be increased, as well as the database number of databases that it supports. That support cannot be found when it comes to the replication between the DC and DR. 

I have been using SQL Server for ten years. 

The solution is sufficiently stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

When it comes to the speed, knowledge and customer-friendliness of the technical support, we feel these to be good. 

We did not use other solutions prior to SQL Server. 

The initial setup is easy, flawless. 

It lasts a single day. 

We handed the implementation on our own. 

This involved a technical team of 15 people. 

There is a need to pay for the license for SQL Server. We have an enterprise license, which we consider to be fine. 

We have 10,000 customers. 

I would recommend the solution to others. 

SQL Server is good and I rate it as a nine out of ten. 

It is used for everything under the sun. We're currently using it for a health pass for a medic aid information management system. It is also used by companies in banking and retail.

We are using SQL Server 2014 on Windows Server 2012 platform, and we also have SQL Server 2016 on Windows Server 2016 platform. I have primarily worked on the hardware, but I am now also working in the Amazon AWS cloud.

The entire solution that we're deploying is built on Microsoft SQL Server as a database engine. Our solution is completely engineered for that, and if we attempt to deploy it in any other database engine, it is going to be a huge nightmare.

Microsoft SQL Server is one of the better database administration software packages out there. It runs primarily on Windows Server platforms, but it can also run on Linux platforms.

Primarily, the data replication and the backup areas can be improved. It should have data replication capabilities and uptime capabilities.  The native SQL Server Backups take more time than do the backup processes from LiteSpeed, and the backup compression is a little less.  

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.5, which came out about 30 years ago.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can run the database engine on the C drive, or you can run it on a large cloud array or a disk array. Currently, we just have developers and testers accessing it.

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you know how to set it up, it is easy, but you have to learn that over time. For a new user, it is detailed. You need to have the right things in place at the right time before you actually install the software.

To create an instance, it takes about an hour overall. This includes deploying the basic system, applying the latest service pack, and then applying the latest cumulative update.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, the number of staff members required would depend on the implementation. It requires coordination amongst teams. It is a team effort. The database administrator creates and runs the jobs that create the backup file. You need to have somebody for copying the backup files to offline storage. You also need to have system administrators for setting up the hardware.

I would advise others to just be familiar with Windows concepts.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. If you're familiar with Windows concepts, it just works.

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 it for both development and administration purposes.  

It's serving our data solution needs okay. 

I like that it's the Always On Availability Groups setup. It ensures our servers are always running.

We need it to support Linux for better troubleshooting flexibility.

I have been using this product for five years. We currently use the older versions, SQL Server 2019 and 2017.

We will soon migrate to the 2022 version. 

It works perfectly. No issues there. 

So, it is a stable product. 

There are around 300 to 500 end users using it. 

We use it for our on-premises solutions, virtual servers and SSAS, SSRS packages. Also, our applications are .NET based, so it made sense to use it. 

The initial setup is very easy. It is easy to understand. 

It is an expensive product. 

I would recommend using it , but it's best if you already know how it works.

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. 

We provide support services to clients. We find that some of our clients are running the latest system while others are still on Windows 2016, others are moving to 2019. Some other clients take time to upgrade. If I interact with five clients, I'll basically be in five different environments.

Our use case for the SQL Server is for transaction processing. We store all the transactions that occur. For example, if you now purchase something from the point of sale, all the information about the good you are purchasing gets stored on the SQL Server. 

When you perform a transaction that information is stored at the bank that owns the point of sale and perhaps even your bank, where your money is will be stored in a SQL Server.

All the people in all of the organizations, which are involved in the process use SQL Server.

If your transaction goes through my server, I store part of the transaction there, and if I have to route that transaction to Visa or Mastercard, they have their own SQL Server, and they also store the transaction up until you get receive your goods at the particular merchant. Almost everyone in that transaction stores the information on their respective Microsoft SQL server.

The most valuable feature would most likely be querying. We query a lot, we use a lot of stored procedures. As for other features, such as replication and all other more fancy features we don't use them the most. I do not know, but perhaps the DBAs would be the best people who know of the features that they use, but as far as how I use it, it's just for querying and running stored procedures. We use the bare minimum features.

We do not know all the features of SQL Server.

If SQL Server could perhaps run on Linux, that would be good. Most of us prefer Linux and I've used a lot of Linux. I understand that SQL Server is quite powerful, but I'm not sure if the functionality is there, but if it could be used in an open-source type of environment, it would be very good.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

SQL Server is stable and is a high-performance database. We do hundreds of transactions per second, it's fairly robust, it does not struggle. Mostly, if your hardware is strong enough and you've set it up properly, then you can actually perform a lot of transactions per second on a SQL Serving installation.

The scalability of SQL Server is relatively easy. if you are in a Microsoft environment, then I think that it relatively it should not be that difficult. However, I haven't been on a project whereby we have had to scale.

SQL Server is suitable for all companies in my experience, ranging from small to large enterprises businesses.

I have not dealt much with technical support, because most of the time when we have issues, we go online. If it's a Microsoft issue, then we go and read up what that issue is. If there's an error, then there are places on the Microsoft support system where we are able to enter in the error code and it is able to tell you why you have that problem. As far as dealing or interacting with people or technical support from Microsoft, I have not done that.

I use MySQL and when comparing the solutions I have found the SQL Server is much more professional, and it's quite big and robust. MySQL is a community of people who are contributing to a project and you have to hack them in order for it to work. But it is quite good as well.

The installation is straightforward and not complex. However, it depends on some of the features that you may want to use. I think it is simply because you only need to tick whatever functionalities you want to use and the ones that you don't need to use, you don't select them.

Most of the time we are doing the implementation from scratch. If it's a big bank, then they would normally have dedicated people who deal with SQL. However, it depends on the customer.

There is some maintenance that is required, such as updates and tuning. We need to find ways of filling up the data so that it doesn't get stale but normally with regular updates, you should be fine.

I cannot comment on the price because I find that the organization already has a license when I arrived. I have not had a sneak peek at the price. When you join an organization, they tell you we are using the 2018 version and that someone purchased it. I don't know who purchased it, I'm not privy to that kind of information.

My advice to companies that are wanting to implement the solution is they have to make sure that they've have a proper skillset. When you have the proper skillset or people who are certified it would make for a better investment into the product. When you are certified, then you know the system in and out and you should be able to have the best implementation for the type of business you have.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

Usually, we use a lot of the vendor software, like ManageEngine, and stuff like that. They use Postgres, however, I prefer to use Microsoft's SQL server. We have a couple of servers and we integrate that information into it. I can run reporting and analysis off of that.

There's a lot of great features. I like T-SQL, which is wonderful. The backups are excellent. There's a lot of things that are much easier to manage. All of the features and functions within the SQL language itself, the store procedures, I really, really enjoy. The security has been excellent.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

The stability is very good.

We find it easy to scale if we need to.

I would like to see better integration between their link server and other platforms, such as IBM, due to the fact that, a lot of times, you want to set up a linked server so you can be on SQL and pull data off of another server using that link server. Sometimes they don't play well together. There just needs to be better integration for those types of situations.

I've been using the solution for about eight or nine years at this point. 

The stability is great. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. The performance is great. 

Scaling is easy if you need to do it. You simply set up a cluster and you can just grow it up.

In our organization, all the end-users are pretty much integrated into it and using it. As far as developers, there are two developers and me that are using it.

We haven't used tech support as we used to have a business partner that wanted us to talk to them instead. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be if you need assistance. 

Here at the company, they used Postgres, and what I didn't care about it was that it was okay, but it didn't integrate with a lot of the other applications. I felt Microsoft did a better job of that.

The setup is pretty straightforward. The only thing that sometimes gets weird is if you have somebody that's needing an ODBC driver from another type of application back to the SQL server. It's usually that other application trying to figure out what it needs to connect to SQL. It's not really SQL's fault.

We are customers and end-users.

We are using both the latest version and a previous version of the solution. I don't have the exact version numbers on hand. 

I would advise new users first to get help implementing it unless you know the solution well, as there's so much that it can do. A lot of times you can actually make a little mistake. Say if you're going to go in a certain direction, if you get some advice, you may be much happier going in another direction completely.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been quite satisfied with its capabilities. It's an excellent product that still has room for growth.