SQL Server Reviews

We're primarily using the solution for our health record system.

The use of a solution with SQL Server has helped standardize how we import, store, and report data. It is a standard that many applications use so we are able to buy pre-made solutions instead of having to develop a solution and the data can be moved from application to application easily.

The solution comes at a more effective price than Oracle. 

It's a little bit more advanced than using MySQL or NoSQL.

It's more prevalent in the industry than SQL Postgre.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

The product is scalable. 

The stability has been mostly pretty good.

There is a lot of information about the solution readily available online.

Every time Microsoft comes out with a new version, they like to move everything around. Updates are a bit intrusive. For example, it used to be in a certain place and then they update it, and now I can't find it.

Technical support could be better. 

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.4. I have used it with several different companies and help upgrade several versions.

With the versions we have, the solution is quite stable. That's one of the reasons we don't immediately download the latest version. We wait a little bit before we go to the newest version. We want to make sure it's very stable beforehand.

The solution is very easy to scale. We have between 300 to 500 people that use it. 

Microsoft's tech support is really hard to use. I would rather look outside of Microsoft for solutions. When needed we usually pay the one-time fee but only in rare instances where a deep dive is needed to isolate the issue.

SQL's been the main solution for this company. I have, however, used Oracle in the past with other companies.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

It can be complex depending on what you're trying to do, however, it has a good user base and user support groups, so there's lots of information. If you're trying to do something, likely somebody else has already done it, and you can usually find that information through a user group or a forum, or even on YouTube or Google.

Implementation was a joint effort with our team and the vendor team. Most of the vendor team was India based and was very low-level for best practices and security. We had to clean up a bunch of their generic implementations and correct code.

That is a complex question since there are too many variables that are outside the range of IT to answer.

The pricing is pretty decent. It's less expensive than Oracle. 

While the solution started out really reasonable, it's gotten a little bit more pricey, as Microsoft keeps changing how they want to license it.

Whether you're using it in the cloud or on-premise changes the costs involved. A lot of times it might be more cost-effective to do it in the cloud. Microsoft includes a lot of the licensing in the cloud.

The evaluation was based more on the applications and the solution that the business unit wanted to use which are easier to support if they all use the same database structure. The most common was SQL Server.

We're just a customer and end-user.

We're not using the latest version. We're probably one or two versions behind.

I'd advise new users that you want to know what you're going to use it for. I would say it's more suited to a more midsize or larger company than a mom-and-pop shop - unless they're tying it to some software that uses SQL.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Performance-wise, SQL cannot handle large amounts of data. In the next release, I would like them to commission SQL Server on Linux, as has been announced in the past but has not yet happened.

I've been using SQL Server for thirteen to fourteen years.

SQL is a highly unstable server - there are patch updates on the Windows server every week, which is why we only use it for non-critical systems. 

The initial setup was very easy - much, much easier than Oracle - and took about a day to complete. Microsoft is less demanding because everything is GUI, unlike Oracle, where you need to use command lines.

This is a very cheap product.

SQL's performance is good enough if you have a low amount of data. For those looking into implementing SQL Server, I would advise first analyzing your requirements and whether your system is critical or non-critical. If it is non-critical, go for SQL as it will save you in terms of cost, but if it is critical, avoid SQL as it will bring you down in one day. I would rate this solution as 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.

This is the main database for our financial system. I'm the IT manager and we are customers of SQL server. 

We've been using this solution for many years.

We're satisfied with the stability.

We have around 100 users. The database isn't used directly, so users are not even aware that there is a SQL Server underneath. 

There are some local companies that have direct relations with Microsoft. We use them regularly when we need some support.

I don't recall, it's been many years since we implemented this product. 

We pay a license fee, it could always be cheaper.

I recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

We use this solution to store our data and for running queries, simple select queries that enable me to create the views I need and report from those views. I'm an ESM specialist and we are customers of SQL Server. 

I like the stability of the solution, the fact that you have two, three, four nodes replicating at any given time at different locations, and they're all synchronized; if one is lost it automatically moves to another. The other advantage here is that when it comes to application maintenance, you switch onto another node while you maintain another server and there's no downtime. 

The solution could have additional security. 

The solution is easily scalable because of its flexibility.

I don't do the installation, but it appears straightforward according to those who carried out the implementation. These days deployment takes about an hour. We have 1,200 or so users. With the onboarding of more customers, we'll be increasing our use of SQL Server. For now, we have one person dealing with maintenance. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We use SQL Server for developing systems.

The most valuable feature of SQL Server is the performance.

I have been using SQL Server for years.

We have approximately three people who are using this solution.

The technical support from Microsoft has been good.

The initial setup of SQL Server is straightforward.

We have two administrators that did the implementation of the solution.

The price of SQL Server could be reduced, the license is expensive. We have an annual subscription.

I would recommend SQL Server to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

It is for supporting our custom applications. We have a number of custom applications that we use that have SQL embedded.

I am using the version before the latest one.

Its usability is very good. Its performance is satisfactory.

Their support could be better. There should be more visibility on the progress of the ticket, and their last line of support should be more knowledgeable. Other than that, we have nothing to complain about.

I have been using this solution for seven to eight years.

Their support could be better. Sometimes, you don't have much visibility of how your service request is progressing. There should be more visibility, and the last line of support should be more knowledgeable.

It was straightforward. It took two to three hours.

We have internal staff for its implementation. We have a team of about three or four people who are well-versed with SQL Server, and we have 30 to 40 users who use this solution.

You need to pay for the license. It most probably has per-core licensing.

I would recommend this solution to others. We are satisfied with the product in general. Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

All our databases are using Microsoft SQL. It supports our application, such as HR and finance.

SQL Server could improve by being more user-friendly, it is still geared towards specialists. Additionally, the monitoring system is difficult to use, not everyone can use it well. The configuration should be able to be done through the GUI.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

SQL Server is highly stable.

SQL Server is very scalable because we use it across a couple of different types of applications, such as micro-infrastructure setup and server farm.

The solution is suitable for any environment, such as small, medium, and large enterprises. 

SQL Server support system is well-established. It's a Microsoft solution therefore you receive support very easily. It is the number one selling point of SQL Server. I have been highly satisfied with the support.

SQL Server's initial setup is simple. However, you must be a specialist to do it. That's the unfriendliness that I see about the solution. It has to be done by an engineer and not any engineer can do it, you have to be a specific Microsoft engineer.

My advice to others would be to create a standard for SQL Server to allow a high level of security. What we did is, we adopted CIS, which is the Center for Information Security, hardening standards and benchmarks to keep it secure. SQL Server out of the box comes with a lot of unnecessary services that can make you very vulnerable to any site attack.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.