SQL Server Reviews

We use this solution to extract data. We have a partnership with Microsoft and I'm a solutions architect. 

This is a user-friendly solution. It's great that I can extract the data from the SQL server and store it in my local data source for BI purposes.

I think that performance could be improved and SQL presents some challenges for us.

The stability is good. 

We haven't faced any scalability issues. We have over 200 users. 

I interact with multiple data sources, multiple customers and their ERPs. It can be Oracle, SAP or MongoDB among other solutions. MongoDB, for example, is a little more complex than the SQL Server and we often have more of a challenge establishing a connection with MongoDB.

The initial setup is not a problem. 

This solution is moderately expensive. 

I can definitely recommend this solution to smaller and midsize organizations. I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

SQL Server is our primary database for identity access management.

What I find most useful in SQL Server is that it's easier to manage and to query. Its databases are well-designed. It's easy to do any changes, and it's easy to query the database through reports and whatever information you need.

There is always room for improvements. In SQL Server, the databases should be able to deal with more data in a faster way. Sometimes, when you have a lot of information running on the SQL databases, the system hangs. Though there are always improvements being done to SQL Server, there's still a lack of speed in being able to process so much information, so the performance of this solution still needs to be improved.

Another area for improvement in SQL Server is its front end, in terms of running the queries, e.g. it would be better if it could give suggestions. For example: When you write something, this solution could have a feature similar to a dictionary's intelligence that will tell you what to write such as the one you have in Word, or in PowerPoint, for example, you'll have the design suggestions for it. An improvement I'd like to see in SQL Server is for it to suggest what you put next when you are writing SQL codes or queries.

We've been dealing with SQL Server for four years now.

SQL Server is a very stable product.

SQL Server is a product you can scale. You can add and remove modules as needed.

SQL Server is expensive if you use the advanced SQL version. If you use the standard version, it's not expensive, because it's included in Windows, in Microsoft. It's very expensive if you use the advanced version. We're using both. For IBM, we're using the advanced version, but then we use the basic SQL Server for the other platforms.

You just pay for the SQL Server license. There's no additional cost as everything's already included.

We currently don't have any issues with SQL Server. There's nothing that we couldn't solve internally, so I haven't had the chance to contact their technical support team.

I'm giving SQL Server an eight out of ten rating.

I can recommend this solution for medium and large enterprises. For small enterprises, it depends: if they use the standard, free one on Windows, yes. If they don't, I wouldn't recommend the investment.

We have a large amount of information and data. We are using a lot of business models for our menu mix.

Because we are using the solution from an analytics perspective, the performance is good. We have a large amount of information in our dashboard. The data navigation could be improved.

We are using the net for our environment. We're using the ADF Azure data factory for our analysis services, and it is pretty good.

Something that could be improved is the cost because it's very high. That's the only thing I'm concerned about but the technology is good. We are looking forward to getting some discounts because we have a large amount of data.

I have been using this solution for three and a half years. The solution is deployed on a public cloud. Azure is the cloud provider.

It's much more stable. It's good. We haven't had any downtime during the past two years. The solution has gone down maybe once.

It should be scalable within the coming years because data is growing and the business is growing.

Right now we have about 300 users, but by next year we might have around 2,000 because we also have a retail side, which could also use the platform. Some of their roles are in the executive layers and the managers layers, and reporting line people also.

We are planning to increase the usage. This is a transformation phase, so we are currently using SAP business objects, and we are on the Oracle database. We just moved to Azure cloud with the data warehouse and Power BI tools.

My team works with support. As far as I know the technical support is good, but occasionally it takes a little bit of time.

Previously, I was using SAP, which is good. The technology is great. It has many more features than Microsoft SQL, like the data architect and performance.

My plan was to use SAP HANA, but we had an acquisition in our company, so we got a new team and new managers. The head of BI decided to go with Microsoft, however, my POC was already accepted with SAP HANA and AWS cloud hosting. We went in the other direction and started using SQL because the people who were hired were more familiar with the Microsoft technology rather than SAP. 

It is mostly straightforward. There were no issues. It takes about two or three months to prepare. Development takes another three months. It takes almost one year to just kick off the project with live production.

For deployment and maintenance, we used seven or eight people. Most of them were developers and DBAs, and some of them were business analysts.

We used in-house developers and had some consultation from Microsoft.

There is a return on investment because based on analytics, we are reducing the number of people who are doing the analytical part so that it's an automated process, and the data will be available to everyone, including business users.

Licensing fees increase depending on size and performance. If you want higher performance, you should go for a different course.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

My advice is to know your use case and requirements so that you aren't surprised after deciding to get this product and realizing in the implementation that you need much more space. You at least need to make a massive POC to know if the product will give you 100% what you need.

We primarily use the solution for our banking database.

Overall, it's a very good device.

The solution has proven to be very stable.

The scalability potential is very high.

The initial setup is very straightforward and the deployment happens very quickly.

The solution could offer more integration with other platforms.

I've been using the solution for about ten years or so. It's been about a decade. It's been a while. 

The product is very stable, from my experience. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. I've used it for ten years with very few issues. The performance and reliability are very good.

The solution can scale quite well. If your company needs to expand it, it can do so pretty easily. It's not hard.

We currently have 5,000 users on the solution.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

We've dealt with Microsoft technical support in the past and we were very satisfied with the level of service provided to us. They are knowledgeable and responsive. 

The initial setup is straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as difficult or complex. It's actually very simple. A company shouldn't have too much trouble with the implementation.

The deployment was fast and barely took two days.

We have five people on staff who can handle the deployment and maintenance for us. They are administrators and engineers.

We had a consultant that assisted us with the implementation. They were very helpful and made the implementation very simple.

We pay a yearly license to Microsoft. I can't speak of the exact cost, however.

We're likely using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. We have been very satisfied with its capabilities over the last decade.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies.

We're using it for our on-premise servers, and we have the latest version of SQL Server.  

We use SQL Server for the database for Microsoft Navision. We also use it for the Track-It application that helps users in logging in their IT requests. We also manage all the IT inventory through Track-It. It does automatic auditing and traces online IT equipment.

We have end-computing devices with a server-client type of model. We have a server. All terminals are dumb terminals, but they get connectivity from SQL Server, and it has worked really well. We operate in difficult locations, such as Mombasa in Kenya and Mozambique in Maputo, where power is a big problem. Instead of desktop computers, we went for thin end-computing clients, and it worked really well with SQL Server.

It is a stable product, and it runs seamlessly. It is not complex.

It has been there for a long time, and they are doing whatever bug fixes they have to do. 

They have too many licensing options. They may want to simplify its licensing and bring it down to two, three, or four categories from ten to fifteen categories. Having so many different licensing options makes it difficult to decide which one to choose from. They can club things together. This is an area where they can make things easier for customers.

I have been using SQL Server for ten years.

It is a stable product.

It has pretty good scalability. In terms of usage, we have two different types of usage. For end-computing usage, we have about 600 or 700 students who use the media labs. For Microsoft Navision and Track-It, we have about 100 staff members as users. 

It is being used fairly extensively. Microsoft Navision is one of the core solutions of our business, and it is used on a daily basis. End computing is used by students. Because of the pandemic, for the last 14 months, everything is closed, and everybody is remote, so end computing has not been used, but Navision continued to be used. After the school reopens in each location, we will continue to use it even more. We definitely have plans for expansion.

Their response is fast.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. In case there is an issue, Microsoft's tech support people come online and help you.

For its deployment and maintenance, two people are required at each location. We have one database specialist and one IT service delivery engineer with networking knowledge.

It comes with the bundle package that we have. We have Microsoft Volume Licensing, so we don't have to pay for it separately. It is a part of the package.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I have nothing to complain about.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. 

We have a few use cases. They range from temporary storage to long-term storage to backup systems. We're using the full versatile suite for the product currently. It's not just a stand-alone system.

I don't have access to that level of knowledge. We just basically work with it on a small scale capacity in our department. That type of information and statistics are held by our IT administrators.

The solution is very easy to use for me. SQL is the most user-friendly system for databasing aside from Postgres. 

Due to the financial costs of Postgres, the SQL system is a good alternative as the product can be utilized free of charge. 

It's a good learning environment, it's easy enough to learn and understand. Anybody that picks up the language early on will be able to develop in it.

With any development language, any programming or software language available, there's always room for improvement. 

With SQL, it requires the more advanced integrated capabilities of Postgres, however, those capabilities do really come with obvious kinds of costs. For example, if SQL were to improve its functionality to incorporate the functionality that is in Postgres. Obviously, some kind of financial licensing will need to be incorporated. It's a bit of a catch-22 with a system similar to an SQL Server. If we want to avoid costs, we have to take a step back from certain integration capabilities.

From a development perspective, the solution needs to be a lot easier to understand or it needs to be easier to implement API packages for connection pooling so we don't have connection interruptions when, let's say, a hundred people simultaneously access the network on a given system, utilizing a specific or single database. Any type of connection pool or connection integration that could increase the total number of users to access simultaneously would be beneficial. That said, I also know there are some security risks involved with that type of connection pooling. However, something from SQL-side that can increase its connection access or its connection stability for multiple user access to a single database system would be great.

I've been using the solution for the past six months or so.

The solution is extremely stable. It's got an amazing backup repository system, a fail-safe system for if any type of data should it be lost. It's got a backup system that stores everything on a day-to-day basis or an hourly basis as well. Depending on the backup and storage drive that you're using or the capacity of the server it is installed on or the local machine, you can pretty much back up any type of critical data, any recent data, or any archive-based data relatively fast. You can also pull that data again, based on the system restore and the server restore is fairly quick.

The solution is 100% scalable to any kind of circumstances you find yourself in. It's easy to use and ready for any type of environment you're working on. It's scalable to any environment as well as to any amount of data. The only limiting aspect of scalability is if you're working on a local system or working on a server-based system. The physical data storage capacity is the only hindrance to scalability. If you've got sufficient data storage, then the scalability is endless.

The only people, to my knowledge, that have any access to the SQL Servers would be the administration and the department of development. The numbers range from anything from 50 to 150 people at any given time.

I'm not sure if we have plans, as an organization, to increase usage.

Any technical support queries we relay to our IT administration team and the IT administration team handle it directly with Microsoft Support. I haven't actually dealt with them directly.

I have experience with Postgres.

The main functionality that I've encountered within the six months is that Postgres is capable to incorporate itself or integrate itself with any known choosing standard API. With the SQL Server, we've got to use connection strings or connection pooling to do this. The API function is not as robust in SQL Server as it is in Postgres as the Postgres user package is based on APIs. Packages based on other companies or software languages that have the communication protocols are already enabled. With SQL Server, you have to hard code those connection strings or connection poolings for the APIs, which makes it far more difficult to use. However, it is still capable of doing it, it is just a longer approach.

Due to the fact that Postgres is a fully integrated package installation, done from a single installer, with SQL Server you can do an advanced complex installation which requires a lot of IT administration background knowledge. Alternatively, you can do a stand-alone use case installation system, if you're just using it for a backup system. They've got a backup package that you install and that's the standard installation you use. Due to SQL's user-friendly approach, it's got a lot of pre-made installation packages that you can install based on the needs or necessities of the company.

The length of time that SQL Server standard installation takes obviously depends on network speed, and UT package downloads. It could take anywhere from five minutes to half an hour. This is all dependent on the network speed that you're running the server installation on. If you've got a fast enough network speed, it should take no longer than five minutes. With a home-based network speed, say a fiber line with 10 megs, it should take you about 15 to 30 minutes just for a standard installation.

The solution is very affordable. It can be used free of charge.

There are payment packages for SQL based on dollars for any level of additions. They offer enterprise, express, and production additions that are available as well as community additions and student additions, which are completely free.

Before anybody had even considered doing any kind of database access, they reviewed all possible capabilities, according to price, functionality, and integration requirements. Ultimately, they settled from the start on SQL Server.

As far as I remember, our administration team did review other options. I'm not familiar with the options that were available prior to this, however, as they stated to me, before SQL has been the one from the go ahead, the option that they chose and they've been running with it since then.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite happy with the solution so far.

Basically with any databasing system, SQL included, a company should be looking at the requirements for why they're looking for any type of databasing system. Is it for backups? Is it for storage? Is it for cross-communication between departments or inter-department communication? Who's going to have the access prior? If it's just going to be on a technical or development level, not a lot of people need to worry about integration requirements except the installation team. Other than that, companies should just look at the financial as well as system requirements that are basically needed for the project or for the company you're in. If a company needs a large scale solution, financially speaking, SQL would be a good solution, however, Postgres would be a far better solution due to its capabilities, integration and API access.

There are certain shortcomings in the scalability of the product, making it an area where improvements are required.

From an improvement perspective, the price of the product needs to be reduced.

I have been using SQL Server for more than ten years. My company is a gold partner of Microsoft.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

It is quite a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

My company's clients who use the solution are mostly enterprise businesses.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I am using Amazon Cognito for the first time in my company.

I rate the product's initial setup phase a seven to eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises models.

The solution can be deployed in a few minutes.

The product is expensive.

In our company's daily operations, we use SQL Server for our enterprise applications.

Speaking about how SQL Server played a critical role in a recent project, I would say that in my company, we used it for full management since we had a three-tier architecture and an enterprise application.

SQL Server was beneficial for data management needs, considering the fact that it was used as a part of SSIS packages, which was helpful for importing the data from legacy software.

The performance of the solution was good.

Though I can't elaborate on the valuable security features, I can say that I did not face any security concerns when using the product.

In SQL Server, I manage data recovery and backup with the help of database mirroring.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it since it is easy to use.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We use SQL Server for tuning data transactional language.

The product helps me tune the transactional language with the databases of our organization.

The product’s most valuable features are flexibility and scalability.

SQL Server could be more robust than Oracle.

I have been using SQL Server for ten years.

The product could be more stable than Oracle.

It is a scalable product.

The technical support services need improvement in terms of communication. It is difficult to understand the accents of the executives from different countries.

The initial setup is easy. The deployment services cost around $2000 to $3000.

SQL Server generates more return on investment than Oracle servers.

The product’s price depends on the specific server requirements.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. It is easy to learn Microsoft products. There is a lot of information available about it on the internet.