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.

Positive

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.

We use SQL Server as a database solution.

The performance of the SQL Server is very good.

I have been using SQL Server for a few years.

The stability is very good.

The solution is scalable. However, we do not have many large servers using SQL Server anymore, we have moved to SAP HANA.

We have approximately 2,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The support offered by Microsoft is very good. We have not faced any issues with SQL Server to need to contact their support.

We use SAP HANA as a database solution for certain use cases.

We have technical managers and engineers that do the maintenance and support for this solution.

We are on an annual enterprise license for the solution and the cost of the license could be reduced.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We have hundreds of databases that are using SEL Server and there may be other capabilities.

It's a standard product that is used with standard applications, which is why we use it.

There is no lack of features.

There are newer models that are available on the market. The agility of the non-SQL-based features is relevant on the market.

Integration is one thing but it's making use of all the iterations or the new cloud data result.

Today's architectures are in many different directions. Not always via SQL relational databases, but also NoSQL databases, and they have a pretty good Java database as well.

We have been using SQL Server in our organization for 10 years, but I am not a day-to-day user.

We use a couple of the versions. We have used the 2016 version and most likely have used some newer versions as well.

SQL Server is a stable product.

We don't have any issues with the scalability of SQL Server.

We have hundreds of thousands of applications using this solution.

We have a dedicated Microsoft account team and we have also dedicated support conditions.

Areas in our organization use AWS Lambda.

We use other relational databases. The most important product besides SQL Server is Oracle. We use SQL Server and Oracle equally.

I am not a patient person with installations, but there are no issues with the installation of this solution.

We have a database team to maintain this solution along with an engineering team, an operational team and we have eternal resources.

The enterprise-level license agreement is very complicated. It's complex, not only with SQL server but with a number of products.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We use SQL Server to ingest and to extract reports for multiple customers. 

SQL Server is cost effective in multiple ways - both the cost of software and the cost of the resource. Meaning, how many resources do we have and what is their expertise level? How easily can they use the SQL Servers or can I use any of the software? Do I need to hire somebody else from the outside to work on the cost?

The feature that I have found most valuable is that it is easy to code. You can very easily get a resource to work on that. For example, if we have a big project it's hard to get a good resource in the IT industry. However, since SQL Server is the most popular solution, you can easily get resources to use it so the risk factors are very, very low. Even if someone leaves the company, you can easily replace them.

Additionally, it is very stable. 

You don't need to struggle for anything. Most of the codes are there.

In terms of what could be improved, everything on-premises is now moving to the cloud. Obviously SQL Server has also moved because Microsoft has its own cloud called Azure SQL and azure synapse. Every solution comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. Each cloud has its own way to maintain resources and that plays a major role. But I would say that Azure Clouds are easy to work as compared to others. To  Performance-wise it's still not as good as on-premises, but it is easy to work with. For example, if you are familiar with the SQL server then you don't need to put any effort to work on the Azure SQL or Azure Synapse. Your efficiency will not decrease and you can easily manage any projects. Its advantage is that it is very similar. Apart from that, if you moving to any other Warehouse like Snowflake, redshift with existing SQL server resources is a little difficult and organizations need to spend money on their training. Which increases cost. 

I have been using SQL Server for almost 10 years.

We just use the on-premises SQL because we have our own server, and we use it on that.

It is stable.

SQL Server is scalable. We started with one hundred data points and now we have up to 1500, it's scalable. You just need to install the new version every time it comes out with a new capability, such as SQL Server 2019 where you can do multiple things.

If I'm talking about the on-premises maintenance requirement, we need a DBA for that if the SQL maintenance is required. But if you move to the cloud this is automatically done by Microsoft itself. however, this still requires some maintenance though.

Microsoft has one of the best supports. They are highly enlightened. It is a very mature product. Even if many times I feel I can do it myself, I choose to reach out to the support team because they have a large number of users and they outsource. You are definitely going to get the outcome you want.

It's hard to tell the exact reason of switching. As I told earlier, Choosing DB cannot be measured only on the performance of the Database. Multiple points need to be considered.

The initial setup is straightforward. Again, it's a mature solution, so it is very straightforward. You don't need to worry about that.

My advice is that this is the time to completely move to the cloud. If you have a golden or platinum partnership with Microsoft or you have good Microsoft resources then best is to move azure clouds. Azure DB services have been improved a lot in the past few years and it continually improving like others. 

They are trying to make it closer to the on-premises version. I know it cannot be exactly like on-premises but they can bring most important features. For example Azure brings SSIS features in ADF which solve lot of issues. Another example, Azure launch Snowflake connector with ADF which saves us to writing code in Azure function. 

At last in my view, you need to evaluate what exactly you are looking for and what type of resource do you have and what is the growth rate of your data. Do you have a direct partner with Microsoft? All things are interrelated and the decision has to depend on these.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SQL Server a Seven.

• SQL Server Integration Services tools

• Data Quality Services tools

• Master Data Services tools

• SQL Server Reporting Services tools

• Data Partitioning (Horizontal Partitioning) tools

• ColumnStore Indices

• In-Memory OLTP tables

We design and implement DW solutions with SS 2016 Dev Ed tools. This solution has given us high levels of productivity, which has allowed us to use an Agile approach to the design and implementation of DW solutions for our customers, and this Agile approach has in turn given us a competitive advantage in our market.

We have also started exploring the use of Microsoft R Client, MS R Services and MS R Server with SQL Server 2016 Dev Ed, which are part of the hosted Data Science package.

We are also looking forward the inclusion of Python support in SQL Server 2017 for said hosted Data Science package.

We are very interested in complementing DW solutions with Data Science and Machine Learning solutions, which could be a major plus for our existing DW customers, even though all hosted data science tools are only available in Enterprise Ed (for our customers), which again presents the same limiting factor (budget) already mentioned.

Having said that, we see that the potential that the hosted Data Science tools offer to some of our customers is large enough to be explored and considered on a case by case basis, with proper ROI analysis.

We do not have much to complain about SS 2016 Dev Ed in itself, we do have some complaints regarding licensing for SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Ed. In an emerging market like Argentina, it is very steep for our customers to pay U$S 28,000 or more on licensing for an instance of SS 2016 Enterprise Ed, and this poses a limiting factor to our growth.

We have been using SS 2016 Dev Ed for a few months so far, but have been using the previous version (SS 2014 Dev Ed) for more than two years.

The deployment tools for DW solutions in both 2014 and 2016 editions of SQL Server are part of the SQL Server Data Tools (SSDT) package. As SSDT is based on Visual Studio, this toolset has been very stable since its inception, both in terms of performance as well as in terms of functionality, so, deployment in 2016 is done in the same way as in 2014, which translates into no issues during deployment.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues, even though the Dev Ed does not offer the same level of performance and scalability that the equivalent Enterprise Ed offers.

Pertaining to the hosted Data Science package that we have been exploring, we have found an important increase in scalability when comparing the performance of a given solution running as hosted, and the same solution running on the same server with only client R tools.

This scalability advantage presents itself as an important reason to consider these tools as a viable solution to some of our DW customers.

As usual, MS offers a very good customer service. The amount of resources (self-study materials, online courses, tutorials) is huge, most of it is free.

Paid customer service is also very good.

Paid tech support is very good and efficient.

I have always used DW tools from Microsoft since SQL Server 2000.

If prior to the setup you do the proper training, there are no issues with setup, but the learning curve is wide and tall.

You could get started fast and sure if you stick to the many Wizards included with the tools, but the scope of said Wizards is limited.

We did not have deployment/implementation issues.

Since SS 2014 Dev Ed, MS is offering these tools free of charge, ROI mainly is focused around training investment. As I have said, we do the training in-house. ROI is around one year (12 months).

No issues with pricing and licensing for SS 2016 Dev Ed, as it is free of charge, as mentioned above, the thorny issue with pricing and licensing is with customers. We do our best to design DW solutions that can cover reqs from our customers within the capabilities of SS 2016 Standard Ed.

The cost-benefit ratio offered by Microsoft's DW solutions is, by a long shot, much more convenient for our customers (small and medium companies) than solutions from other vendors, hands down.

Consider the ROI (most training investment). If training is not in-house, only hire training from an official Microsoft Training Center in your region. Look for the best Training Center. Once you are done with the training, you can start taking customers for DW projects.

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.

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 use the SQL Server for backups and for creating databases and a lot of other stuff. I also use it to shrink data and some stuff like this. 

The solution is great for creating backups.

You can create databases using this product.

I like the way you can shrink the volume using SQL.

It's a very stable solution.

I've found the product to be able to scale well. 

There should be more security updates for the product. That would be ideal. 

I've used the solution for about five or six years. I've used it for quite a while at this point. 

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

So far, I have found the solution to be quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it out, it can do so. 

We have about 4,000 users on the solution currently. About five to seven different departments use it. 

I don't directly deal with technical support. That would be handled by a different department and a person who is responsible for dealing with issues. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

I did not use a different solution before using SQL. 

It's easy for anyone to install. For me, it was good and easy to install. A company shouldn't have any issues tacking the process. 

The deployment is quick. It takes about 15 to 20 minutes. That's it. 

I didn't need the assistance of consultants or integrators. It was something I could handle on my own. 

You can pay an annual or monthly licensing fee in order to use the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. It's very useful.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.