SQL Server Reviews

We use the latest version.

Most SQL Server applications come with package applications from the shelf. This means that when one buys an application, most of these applications work with SQL Server as a basis. They add SQL Server as a database to applications which come with it that one buys. As such, I don't see many people developing new applications with SQL server.

A valuable feature of the solution is that it is comparatively simpler to manage than Oracle. Now that the Linux version is an option, this can be taken into consideration, since Windows limited one's use to things which could only be done in Windows. 

Database support could be improved. Oracle provides better support. 

While the price of the solution is comparatively cheaper, people are paying to Microsoft, in any event, for other things that they're using. 

Thoughs the licensing cost could be cheaper, this depends, as there is nobody who only uses the database with Microsoft. Every company has Windows, Office, Active Directory and all the security features of Microsoft. This means that, overall, when one buys these licenses together, he also gets the database. The focus is not on the price of the database, but what is actually being paid to Microsoft. 

The licensing price could be better, more user-friendly. Things should be be moved from the enterprise to the standard edition. 

As with Oracle, we have been using SQL Server for a long time. They actually have the same shelf life. We have been using the solution for around 30 years. 

The support does not reflect how Microsoft used to be. It can depend. Oracle has a much more sophisticated database, so it comes with expanded support. There are many solutions which come out of the box, as all the problems which could arise have already been encountered by the customers. This is why they are building a big data, to have a ready answer for any issue which may arise, the answer being very quick and straightforward. 

When it comes to Microsoft, noone delves deep, so such problems as those arising with Oracle are not encountered. Oracle is much more sophisticated and comes with many problems. This is why the solution comes with better support, as they have already provided a foundation for many of the solutions.

We did not use a solution prior to SQL Server, with the exception of, maybe, Access. 

The installation is good. 

It took very little time, a couple hours. 

Installation can be done on one's own. Everything can be done sequentially, from one thing to the next. 

While the price of the solution is comparatively cheaper, people are paying to Microsoft in any event for other things that they're using.

Although the licensing cost could be cheaper, this depends, as there is nobody who only uses the database with Microsoft. Every company has Windows, Office, Active Directory and all the security features of Microsoft. This means that, overall, when one buys these licenses together, he also gets the database. The focus is not on the price of the database, but what is actually being paid to Microsoft.

The licensing price could be better, more user-friendly. Things should be moved from the enterprise to the standard edition.

Microsoft is fine. They have done a good job.

As everyone has a station with Microsoft installed, everybody is making use of it. When it comes to the database, this depends on the application. As I said, we are talking about a package solution, so use of the same application could consist of several hundred people or thousands. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

We use SQL Server for our application data.

As a government agency, all of our data is stored in our environment on-premises.

SQL Server is easier to use than Oracle, programming-wise.

It is the latest technology and pretty powerful in terms of the high availability of the virtual server.

We have had problems implementing a data warehouse using SQL Server. It may be because the data is too big, although it claims to be able to handle the amount of data that we have. Perhaps there are some technical issues because there is something weird going on. It cannot find the correct IP address.

I have been using SQL Server for ten years.

This product is not quite as stable as Oracle. I would rate the stability as moderate and would not rate it ten out of ten.

SQL Server claims to be good, scalability-wise, but we have had issues with it.

On the other hand, we have been using it for a lot of large applications and it has worked well in those cases. For the most part, it is good, and we have a lot of users.

Microsoft technical support is good.

I also have experience with Oracle and I find that SQL Server is easier to work with, but it is not as powerful.

Initially, it is easy to set up.

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is that it is relatively easy to set up.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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 developed a product for banks and we store the data in SQL Server.

SQL Server has good performance, but it could be better.

I have been using SQL Server for a couple of years.

The stability of SQL Server is very important for us because we provide services for banks. The banks need a secure and stable solution from us and we have requested from the cloud provider to give us this level of service.

We have approximately 10 developers and architects using SQL Server. Additionally, we have approximately four end-users using the solution.

The support from Microsoft has been good.

I have previously used Oracle.

The initial setup of SQL Server is not complicated. 

We have four technicians that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required to use the solution and I am satisfied.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

For my business requirements, the performance is good. If we use it on a larger scale, it will not fit our business needs.

It is easy to use.

It has simple syntax, but you must check your packet on a daily basis.

We occasionally face or encounter a problem with the database table itself. Some tables and their flyers, as well as the content's data, must be truncated. It was a major issue with my ERP system because it is a backbone database application. It hasn't happened often, but it was a bad experience. Regarding some table issues, I believe we will encounter them in many applications, but I believe the other vendor, such as Oracle, has more than tools to protect my data.

In the next release, I would like to see a better user interface and a familiar syntax.

I have been working with SQL Server since 2003. It's been more than 10 years.

We use a version component for each application. One is for 2014, and the other is for 2017.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

We have two users in my company. The ERP system has nearly two users. We have about five users for subsidies and the sister company.

I'm not going to increase our usage because I'm going to the cloud. We're going to the cloud, according to my plan. Oracle NetSuite, Microsoft cloud, or NetSuite. Because they are both cloud-based, I don't need to increase the number of SQL server users, either for administration or for users.

I'm not opening a ticket with SQL about the issues we experienced, because it was opened by my partner, but it didn't solve the problem. For my table, it almost uses truncate comma syntax, and it flushes my table contact.

Approximately 10 years ago, I used Oracle Database.

The initial setup is straightforward. I did not encounter any issues.

We have 12 technical teams with four admins to maintain the solutions in our companies.

I don't need a license for it as I will be migrating to Office 365.

I would recommend this solution for small and medium-sized companies, but for enterprise businesses.

I know it's not the best, but this application meets our requirements.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

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.

Out of all the tools in the complete SQL Server package, I'm mainly using Toolbox and SQL Profiler because I'm using SSIS packets, so we're using job scheduling a lot. And sometimes we are creating the SSIS packages, so I'm using SQL Server for MSD for maintenance purposes. SQL Server is quite user-friendly. I have experience with Oracle and PostgreSQL, so out of three, I like SQL Server a lot.

They could increase the intelligence of SQL Server. That would be good for us.  There are some good intelligent features in SQL Server. However, they need to increase the intelligence because people switching to SQL Server from other solutions are not so familiar with it. I've been working with SQL Server for the last six years, but people are coming from MySQL or Oracle, so it will take one or two months to adjust. Still, they could add some intelligent tools to convert Oracle into SQL Server something like that. 

And sometimes when I'm writing a function, there is already a predefined structure available. So if they defined their structure more precisely, that would be good for us. And the last thing I would like to add is that SQL Server should handle queries more like Oracle does. For example, you submit a query in Oracle, and the whole table comes up. In SQL Server, you go to the table, right-click, and it lets you see the first 200 rows. Then on top of that, you can add 200 more rows.

So in place of those 200 rows, if I can update all my table records or search my table record without a new search query, it'll be very beneficial. That functionality exists in Oracle, but this feature is not available everywhere in SQL Server. So if SQL Server had the feature, it'd be great because SQL Server is lacking only on this point. For example, one of my clients is a semi-technical person, so I have to train them to file a query in SQL. And they say that Oracle is much better. Say, for example, that I wanted to query a particular employee from a list of all staff. So the query output comes, and they can directly filter out the data by just applying the filter. They don't have to use the drop-down menu and search for all the employees with a given name. 

I've been using SQL Server for the last six years. I'm working with SSIS, SSRS, or MDS. These tools are part of SQL Server, and the back-end queries are developed in SQL Server. 

SQL Server is stable. SQL Server has crashed only two times in six years, but it wasn't a major system error. 

It may be a licensing issue, but sometimes its operating speed becomes slow if we have multiple users. It's lacking some performance, but it's acceptable because we have a heavy load. And I would like to add that we're running SQL Server and SSIS at the same time. So while I've found that SQL Server is quite fast, SSIS is a part of SQL Server. It is just for data testing in India. But if a person knows SSIS, then they usually have very little knowledge about SQL and vice versa.

I know both of them. I found that maybe it's a bad habit, but I'm using SSIS packages. And in the SSIS package, I'm using Toolbox from SQL Server to improve the latency. Implementing both together takes a little time. And one more point is data handling. I am just forwarding the error names, and there are multiple errors in the SQL Server tool, but what if a person comes to work under me and has only one or two years of experience?  Sometimes it might be difficult for them to understand what the errors mean. For example, when joining data, it's easy to implement the inner joint. In the inner joint, there are two columns, so when there's an output error, someone who is inexperienced with SQL Server might not understand. Error messages should be a little more precise and defined, so it's easy to understand.

Setting up an individual SQL Server is pretty straightforward, but when you are implementing multiple tools, it's more complicated. In terms of maintenance, for the DBA part, there are two based in my company because I am on a master device, so they don't allow me to maintain the server part. So one person is from South Korea, and the other is from China. They are handling my SQL Server. So maybe there are multiple teams, but I am contacting these two guys, the DBA. And I'm MDS, so I'm a single person. There are two people on my team, and I have one junior staff member. So I have a three-person team, and there are two DBA sites because I'm discussing my master team. I am deployed on the business side, and there are more than 80 people who are end-users of SQL.

If you're using SQL Server along with SSIS and SSRS tools, it works pretty smoothly and all. When working with Oracle SQL, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc, there are a few problems with the connection.

Overall, SQL Server is good, but sometimes, optimization becomes a little bit tricky when you're using SQL Servers in place of Oracle. For example, while I was implementing two queries one time, the SQL Server gave me the wrong results. This wasn't because of their internal modules. So there may have been some missing data, but SQL Server failed to identify those issues. SQL Server needs to improve there.

For example, say there is a line with a value of 136 or 137. The second value is a space, and the third value is null. And the last one is space. So a space means this is also null. So you are comparing these four values, and if you don't have any idea about data, it's a little problematic. So cases like this, we can deal with such queries using syntax, but if a person has no idea how to deal with this, they'll face an issue.

Here's another example. Say there's a team query that means we are erasing data from the teams, and some people are just analyzing the string. So I see data from it, which means the calling system is there. In the calling system, we receive the data to call anyone, and that type of wire call setup is there. So I am receiving a full-text format from the file I have to upload in the SSIS package. And some cells have a null value. It's a text file, so you can understand there are blanks in some places. I don't know the file type, so I am just trying to dump it into our SQL Server. But when I have time to get to that table, I realize that some values are null, space, and blank. So these four values make problems for me.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10. I would recommend SQL Server to anyone because you can use cloud-based services, so it's very beneficial. If you install SQL Server on-premise and on the Azure cloud, it is much more advantageous for you. 

We do data warehousing, and our clients are mainly large commercial Insurance providers in the United States.

It's easy to use and fairly intuitive. I do development and data analysis, so we do a lot of work with SSIS and SQL Job Scheduler. Deploying new databases is very simple with things like BACPAC. You don't have to do all the scripting for the database, then all the tables, keys, etc. It takes all that out of your hands.

One thing I don't like about SQL Server is the way they've set up security with users and groups. It just doesn't seem that intuitive to me. Adding some more explanatory information might help some. Sometimes the documentation is a little thin, but the same could be said about a lot of products.

I've been using SQL Server on and off since it first came out in the 1990s. Most of the people I've worked for are SQL Server shops.

I can't really speak intelligently about that because I haven't been on any of the real big ones yet. 

The complexity of the initial setup really depends. Obviously, you're going to need to know a few things and there are different ways to do deployments. I like the BACPAC, which is one of the features that come with SQL Server. It's a nice feature to deploy. BACPAC really handles all of the configuration for you. If you use that, I don't think you really need to know too much. If we're talking about a small database that holds a few thousand records, it doesn't matter what you're doing. You can't make a mistake because it's just not big enough.  

We do a lot of Azure-based on-demand type systems where we host the system or we host it in Azure. We do the work for them. So we don't really do a lot of those installs.

We're going a lot heavier into Azure and we're going to be dealing with lots of volume because insurance data is pretty voluminous. I think some of our clients don't like the idea of having one gigantic VM system to run the database. That's one reason why they're switching to Snowflake. We had to do some SSRS stuff in the past, and I think they're moving over to Power BI mostly.

I'd probably rate SQL Server nine out of 10. I don't think I'd give anybody a 10, but I think nine's about the best I can do. In my experience, it's been reliable and easy to use.