SQL Server Reviews

My main use case for SQL Server is for day-to-day activities, including SQL Server installation, upgradation, migration, applying cumulative updates, and maintenance plans.

I support customers when they have requirements, including daily routine tasks like SQL Server upgradation, migration, maintenance plans, and database refresh activities, as well as handling job failures.

SQL Server has positively impacted our organization mainly through improvements in stability, performance, and operational efficiency, maintaining reliable production databases while structuring backup, monitoring, security, and troubleshooting processes. A noticeable improvement includes faster incident resolution, as features such as Query Store, execution plans, dynamic management views, and SQL Server Agent help identify performance tuning and other issues more quickly. Additionally, it has improved data protection and availability through automated backups, transaction log backups, and high availability solutions such as Always On, thereby reducing downtime and improving application performance.

I experienced significant improvements in incident response time, recovery, and application performance with SQL Server. For example, after enhancing monitoring and utilizing tools such as Query Store, dynamic management views, and SQL Server Agent, our team can identify issues such as blocking, long-running queries, and failed jobs much quicker, reducing troubleshooting times from around thirty to sixty minutes to roughly fifteen to thirty minutes, depending on the issue. Automated backups and transaction log backups have also led to reduced recovery times, and we have confidence in the restore process. Proper indexing and query tuning improved response times affecting applications. Overall, we achieve less troubleshooting effort, faster incident resolution, and better database availability.

In my opinion, the best features SQL Server offers include restore, Query Store, security, performance tuning, SQL Server Agent, and integration with Azure.

The feature I find most valuable in SQL Server is Query Store, especially for production performance troubleshooting, as it provides a historical view of query execution, duration, CPU, I/O, and the execution plan, allowing me to compare current performance with previous behavior. For instance, we had a production query that usually completed in a few seconds but suddenly started taking much longer. I used Query Store to compare execution plans and identified that the optimizer had switched to a less efficient plan. After investigating the statistics and indexing, we addressed the issue, leading to normal performance.

I would also highlight security, performance tuning, and Azure integration as important strengths of SQL Server. Features such as role-based access control, Transparent Data Encryption, auditing, and least privilege permissions help protect our production data and support compliance requirements. Additionally, performance tuning features such as execution plans, dynamic management views, Query Store, indexing, and extended events provide the database administrator with good visibility into CPU, memory, blocking, and slow queries. Moreover, I find Azure integration valuable for extending the traditional SQL Server environment to the cloud through Azure SQL Database, Azure SQL Managed Instance, Azure virtual machines, and Azure Backup for migration, scalability, and disaster recovery. Overall, SQL Server stands out due to its strong combination of security, performance, high availability, automation, and cloud integration.

SQL Server is very mature, but I see areas for improvement, especially in performance tuning, troubleshooting, and automation. Although tools such as Query Store and dynamic management views are powerful, some troubleshooting tasks still require senior SQL Server database administrator expertise. It would be valuable to have more intelligent, built-in recommendations for root cause analysis, indexing, blocking, and query optimization. I would also like to see simplified and consistent management across on-premises SQL Server and Azure SQL services, as managing hybrid environments sometimes requires different tools and approaches. Finally, improved patching, updates, monitoring, and cost and license transparency could make SQL Server easier to manage at the enterprise scale.

One area I would improve in SQL Server is its documentation and troubleshooting guidance. SQL Server documentation is comprehensive, but for complex production issues, I would like to see more real-world troubleshooting examples, especially for scenarios such as Always On synchronization issues, blocking and deadlocks, performance degradation, and upgrade features.

I have been using SQL Server for four or more years.

I find SQL Server to be stable in my experience.

In my experience, SQL Server's scalability is good, both vertically and horizontally, as long as the architecture is designed properly. Performance can be improved with proper indexing, query tuning, partitioning, and database maintenance. Availability groups provide readable secondary replicas and failover capabilities, and Azure also offers additional scalability options in cloud environments. Overall, I rate SQL Server's scalability as high, particularly for enterprise production workloads, provided that growth is planned proactively.

I utilize Microsoft SQL Server support when troubleshooting issues that cannot be resolved through our database administrator processes or existing documentation. Overall, I find this support reliable, especially for critical production issues, as Microsoft provides adequate documentation, troubleshooting resources, and structured support through support cases. My experience shows that supplying SQL Server error logs, dumps, execution plans, statistics, and other diagnostic information significantly aids the support team in investigating deeper into issues. One area for improvement would be a faster turnaround time for non-critical cases and more critical, scenario-based troubleshooting guidance, but I am satisfied with the overall support.

I would rate customer support for SQL Server as eight out of ten.

Prior to SQL Server, I worked with traditional file-based data storage and various other database technologies depending on the application. We transitioned to SQL Server mainly due to its robust platform that provides centralized data management, security, backups, recovery, performance monitoring, and high availability.

I have observed a return on investment with SQL Server, primarily through time savings and reduced operational effort while not necessarily requiring fewer employees. For instance, by utilizing SQL Server Agent for automation, Query Store for performance troubleshooting, and automated backup and restore maintenance jobs, routine SQL Server database administrator activities have become more consistent and require less manual intervention. Tasks that previously took thirty to sixty minutes are now reduced to roughly fifteen to thirty minutes, depending on the issue. The significant advantage is that the database administrator team can focus more on productive performance tuning, planning, security, and automation, leading to improved database administrator productivity, faster incident resolution, reduced downtime risk, and better utilization of the existing team.

My experience with SQL Server's pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that it can be one of the more complex and expensive aspects of operating at an enterprise level.

Before choosing SQL Server, I evaluated other options, and my main reasons for selecting SQL Server include its strong administrative and monitoring tools, SQL Server Agent automation, backup and restore capabilities, and features such as Always On and Query Store. For a production environment, the primary advantages we have are performance, management, availability, security, and recovery structured optimally.

I regard SQL Server's artificial intelligence capabilities as potentially beneficial, although governance and security are critical, particularly for production databases. Artificial intelligence-assisted features can assist with query analysis, performance recommendations, and troubleshooting, but they should operate within existing SQL Server security controls to ensure access follows the least privilege principle, and sensitive production data is not unnecessarily exposed to artificial intelligence services. From a governance perspective, I want clear control regarding the data accessed, where it is processed, who can use artificial intelligence features, and how activities are audited. It is also essential that artificial intelligence recommendations are reviewed by a database administrator prior to implementing changes in production, as I see artificial intelligence significantly enhancing a database administrator's productivity, but it needs to be governed with robust access controls, auditing, and data protection.

I regard the output from SQL Server's artificial intelligence capabilities as a recommendation rather than a guaranteed answer. A major strength is that artificial intelligence can quickly assist in identifying potential performance issues, explaining queries, suggesting optimizations, and expediting troubleshooting, saving a SQL Server database administrator time during incident investigations. The main weakness stems from artificial intelligence's possible lack of understanding regarding application behaviors, workload patterns, or business requirements. Thus, for production, I validate recommendations using execution plans, Query Store, dynamic management views, and testing in our change management process prior to implementation. Overall, I value the artificial intelligence output as a starting point and a productivity tool, but human database administrator validation remains crucial for achieving accuracy and reliability.

I have deployed SQL Server in hybrid mode, utilizing both a private cloud and on-premises within my organization. For my hybrid deployment, I use Amazon Web Services and Azure cloud.

My advice for others considering SQL Server is to evaluate it if they require a mature, reliable, enterprise database platform with strong security, performance, backup, recovery, high availability, and automation capabilities. I highly recommend leveraging features such as Query Store, SQL Server Agent, Always On, and built-in backup and recovery capabilities rather than using SQL Server solely for basic data storage. Organizations should also carefully plan for licensing costs, infrastructure sizing, security, monitoring, and long-term maintenance. If the organization has an existing Microsoft or Azure ecosystem, SQL Server proves to be a strong choice because of its integration, tooling, scalability, and broad enterprise capabilities. I would rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten.

My usual use cases for SQL Server include everything, as it functions as both a data warehouse and OLTP system, among many other applications. SQL Server serves both OLTP and OLAP purposes since the scope of what I do is quite broad.

The most valuable feature of SQL Server that I have found is the Ledger in the most recent releases. What I particularly appreciate about the Ledger is that it is immutable, meaning you cannot edit anything, so the end user can always trust the numbers.

I find SQL Server's ability to integrate with other Microsoft services, such as Azure, in supporting business intelligence and data analytics workflows to be excellent. It simply works seamlessly.

Having this level of integration is very important to me because it makes my life easier. I integrate SQL Server with various services including Fabric, Excel, and SharePoint. Every one of these integrations is seamless, and I have not encountered any issues with them.

SQL Server's high availability and disaster recovery features work for supporting mission-critical applications, but there is much more to wish for. These features are not quite ready yet, although they do function. However, they could be significantly better.

High availability and disaster recovery features should be improved in the next releases. I have noticed that everything could be improved or enhanced in the future, particularly temporal tables and window functions. Sometimes, I believe Microsoft releases features to stay ahead of competitors, but they do not make them feature-rich or feature-complete. They release something to be ahead of leaders and then seem to forget to maintain and upgrade them.

I want Microsoft to pay more attention and be more mindful about the things they implement. It is fine to do a first release that works, but you cannot simply abandon it in the following years without service packs and improvements. You must continue to build on features rather than forgetting about them.

I have been working with SQL Server for thirty-three years.

SQL Server is quite stable, though there are a few bugs that we are sorting out. There was an issue with memory-optimized tables, but it was resolved in 2025, allowing you to remove that file group, which was not possible before. There are still some issues with Ledger that I am discussing with Peter from Hogen.

You should actually be able to delete things from the Ledger from the beginning, not in the middle or at the end of the blockchain, but from the start of the blockchain. You should be able to delete old rows. There were critical repercussions from this issue, as the databases decreased in size immensely, filling the disk and causing everything to stop. We had to drop the Ledger table as a result.

SQL Server is quite scalable, though it needs some more work in disaster recovery and availability groups. When the needs of my customers grow and they want to expand, SQL Server usually accommodates this. Most of the time, they simply add another node in the availability group. They can offload some work, perform backups from one node, handle reporting from another node, and so on.

I am an MVP, so I am constantly in touch with the technical support of Microsoft for SQL Server. I find their expertise and professionalism to be very high, and they are very professional and courteous. Although I am largely my own support, when I need assistance, I have people on the inside. I give their technical support a rating of ten out of ten.

Positive

I usually participate in the initial setup of SQL Server. The usual process for setting up SQL Server is straightforward for me, and I do not have any issues or challenges. With the deployment, I have not encountered any issues where I needed to find a workaround. Everything has only been smooth for me.

With my license plan, I have not focused on return on investment with SQL Server, as that is not my line of business. I act as an advisor for what clients need. They tell me what kind of project they want, and I advise them accordingly. For example, I tell them, "You need Standard edition because you will not be needing online operations, you will not need data encryption," and so on. With Standard edition, they have saved a ton of money and they are really happy about that.

I am aware of the pricing of SQL Server, unfortunately. I find Standard edition affordable, but for Enterprise edition with the few additions that it provides, it is not worth the money. Almost every one of my clients has reverted back to Standard edition. The extra cost is approximately ten times more for these few extra features, and they believe it is not worth it.

My customers usually deploy SQL Server on-premises. One third of them have tried to use the cloud, including both Amazon and Azure, but the price is not worth it. There are so many hidden costs that it adds up to approximately twice the price tag of having it on-premises.

I do not use SQL Server Reporting Services that much for reporting, as we create files to send to the authorities in Sweden. I have not used SQL Server Reporting Services to create detailed reports and dashboards. I have some experience with those solutions to some degree. I am working with SQL Server mostly, both on-premises and in the cloud. Consultant is the most likely role for me rather than being an end user of SQL Server. I have not tested SQL Server's in-database machine learning capabilities yet. In my experience, I have not used SQL Server Analysis Services for data mining and creating analytical models in the last twelve years.

I would rate this product an eight out of ten.

I use SQL Server for managing multiple customer databases and in-house databases, with my day-to-day activities for SQL Server including managing them from the database administrator point of view, for automation, for performance, for data security, and for compliance perspective.

SQL Server has several lovable features including a fabulous GUI through SSMS, their flawless HADR functionality Always On which I can explore anywhere, their SQL Server Agent for scheduling without depending on Windows Task Scheduler, and their DMVs, Dynamic Management Views, and Dynamic Management Functions to query anything internal and know what is happening behind the scene in SQL Server.

For automation, SQL Server has a feature of Always On, which is HADR functionality, and I have built automation around it so that it can auto heal if there is Always On latency with the combination of SQL Server and PowerShell. I check the Always On latency continually as it is a two-phase commit that can impact application performance, allowing me to convert the Always On role from sync to async to reduce pressure on the IO systems. For data security, the tightened security SQL Server provides at instance level, then at database level, and then at object level, is very useful, allowing granular access for least user privilege concept, which I use diligently.

Always On HADR functionality is one of the features that I use on a daily basis and one of my most used features, saving me lots of time, especially since previously I had to build a SQL cluster and Windows clusters that had many dependencies on shared infrastructure, but now with Always On, it is too stable with easy management and almost zero maintenance, which SQL Server handles itself.

The new features that are in the pipeline should be added to SQL Server as soon as possible. One long-pending request from Microsoft is for two-node write capabilities, as currently, I can write from one node and read from multiple nodes, unlike Oracle's RAC technology, which would be a game changer if implemented, especially with costly cloud infrastructures where secondary nodes could be better utilized.

I have been using SQL Server continuously for the last 19 years.

SQL Server is not a tool; it is behind the technology to handle your data, depending on the application, but all applications supporting SQL Server in my experience work very well across various industries including telecom, finance, banking, ad, entertainment, and workforce management.

SQL Server's scalability is very easy. I can scale both horizontally and vertically without challenges, easily shutting down the machine for vertical scaling or adding multiple nodes for horizontal scaling.

I chose 9 out of 10 due to their tech support. There was a time when Microsoft support provided very crisp answers, but over time, they have diluted their support to third parties, leading to a drop in support quality, which restricts me from giving a perfect 10, as post-sales service is crucial.

Customer support is very active, but the technical aspect is tricky because Microsoft has diluted their tech support to third-party vendors.

Positive

When comparing with other peer products, the cost of SQL Server is pretty good, and it is very easy to set up.

I have not switched. I have been using SQL Server from version 6.5 through to 2025, continuously for the last 19 years.

When it comes to cost, in the market, we have three major players of RDBMS: Oracle, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL, where Oracle is the most costly database system, and SQL Server, with its enterprise features, offers low cost in comparison to Oracle, while PostgreSQL, though a merging technology, is not an enterprise-level solution and has flaws, making SQL Server the most cost-effective with good human resource availability to manage it.

When comparing SQL Server with other RDBMS products, I need fewer human resources due to its great GUI and ready-to-go features, along with cost savings on human resources for Windows plus SQL Server versus other solutions.

If someone is looking for a perfect bundle of RDBMS with enterprise solutions at low cost compared to other products and easy support and handling, they must go with SQL Server.

All of the valuable features and benefits I have outlined demonstrate why SQL Server is an excellent choice for enterprise database management. I would rate this product 9 out of 10.

Currently, I am only performing manual querying to validate the data.

My main use case with SQL Server includes assigning roles to new joinings. If there is any new joining in our project, I have access to assign roles to them, such as only read access or write access, so that the security of the database is protected.

SQL Server has made a positive impact in our organization. SQL Server is the source, and there is an Aloha team which is loading the data into SQL Server from the business, and we are using that data. The backup and recovery allow us to easily access previous 10 to 15 years of data, which is only possible using SQL Server due to its uniqueness in handling large data sets. Another thing is faster query performance; using SQL Server, we can query multiple tables at a time by connecting to different servers at once. Compared to other SQL querying tools, it provides output in lesser time while also allowing for parallel processing. These features have saved us a lot of time.

Regarding needed improvements, I find the interface of SQL Server to be fine; anyone with previous knowledge in SQL querying can easily use SQL Server. The technical support from Microsoft is good and they have a large online community, which is beneficial. The documentation is also good, allowing a person who is new to SQL Server to easily find the tool accessible to them. Therefore, aside from the two issues I mentioned, everything else looks good from my perspective.

For SQL Server, we use applications for transactional operations, reports, and financial applications.

Financial applications are a primary use case.

Reporting Services is the best use we have with SQL Server, particularly for processing and generating financial reports.

We only use it for reports, while we utilize another tool for dashboards.

The best features of SQL Server are availability and stability. We never have concerns about the database.

The ability of SQL Server to integrate with other Microsoft services, such as Azure for supporting business intelligence or data analytics, is primarily through Power BI for analytics tools. We use Power BI, but not in the cloud.

We have interfaces with other databases. We extensively use the ETL tools of SQL Server for integrating with other databases or text files. The ETL tools are excellent for making jobs that run daily or hourly.

For disaster recovery features supporting mission-critical applications in our organization, we have implemented the high availability feature of SQL Server. The always-on feature provides high availability in SQL Server. We use this tool daily for our risk management application.

The main area of SQL Server that can be improved is the price. The cost is substantial for using the tool. Currently, we need to implement high availability for some applications. When we consider the price for replication in another site, the pricing becomes prohibitive. Due to the pricing, we are studying and considering alternative databases such as Postgres or MySQL.

I have worked with SQL Server since 2010. The setup process, while involving many steps, is straightforward and easy to implement.

The scalability in SQL Server is noticeable in applications where we have the high availability feature. This tool has required scalability for processors or memory several times, and it was straightforward to implement. The server where we installed it has grown from 64 gigabytes in RAM to 256 gigabytes, demonstrating significant scalability capabilities. SQL Server performs exceptionally in this aspect.

I would rate Microsoft support for SQL Server a 5 out of 10. We have only needed support a couple of times in the last three years. When we created support tickets, the experience was very positive.

Positive

I have not used any machine learning capabilities with SQL Server.

I have not utilized data mining or created analytical models as we use another tool for those applications.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate SQL Server a 10.

My main use case for SQL Server is for extraction, data manipulation, data pre-processing, and then executing the codes.

I use SQL Server to extract data from the cloud in my day-to-day work and then process that for data manipulation and data cleaning. I used to remove all null values and maintain all the columns and data types properly.

A unique aspect of my main use case with SQL Server is that the execution time is faster here, and it is easy to handle and learn as well.

The best features SQL Server offers in my experience are that I can run multiple subqueries at the same time using functions and storing the data in a different table view is easy here.

Running multiple subqueries at the same time has improved my workflow and efficiency, especially for my automation tasks, where the work has reduced significantly.

For automation, I can run multiple queries, write stored procedures, and write CTE, which helps me to automate everything properly using SQL Server.

SQL Server has positively impacted my organization by saving time and improving accuracy. The execution time it takes is very minimal, so I can retrieve whatever data is needed in an instant. The accuracy is higher in SQL Server, as whenever I mention a particular table, it can extract data from that particular table only.

Whenever I want to execute a select statement or do any extraction, it takes seconds or milliseconds to showcase the output in the results. It is very fast, and when it comes to accuracy, it provides almost ninety percent accuracy. Whenever I run it multiple times, it provides the same output.

Regarding SQL Server's AI capabilities, its governance is not compromised. Everything is working properly and saves time as well.

The accuracy and reliability of SQL Server's output are top notch. Accuracy is approximately ninety percent. Reliability is something I experience with daily usage.

SQL Server is doing well, but I wish the optimization aspects were better. The user interface front end needs to change.

SQL Server needs more optimization regarding calling different subqueries, having storage, and storing different tables in the schema. These improvements should take less time and would be very helpful for us.

I have been using SQL Server for four years.

SQL Server is stable in my experience.

SQL Server's scalability is much greater based on its reliability and deployment in a cloud basis.

The customer support for SQL Server is great. Whenever I face any issues, they provide proper feedback and guidelines, and everything is working great.

Before SQL Server, I used Snowflake as a database to run execute codes, but I switched to SQL Server recently for its deployment into Azure, security, data governance, and AI capabilities.

I have seen a return on investment with SQL Server. I invested in the pricing for this particular license and service, and the return I see is time and accuracy.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for SQL Server is around one year.

Before choosing SQL Server, I evaluated options based on return on investment, pricing, license, and reliability.

My advice to others looking into using SQL Server is to ensure they go with proper licensing, pricing, and reliability. I would rate this product an eight out of ten.

My experience with Microsoft products is very good. In my job, we are working with reporting services.

We have emulated SSRS server from on-premises server to the cloud, and now the server is running on the cloud. The first one is very good, and all the products that we have running are okay for us. Another product from Microsoft that we are working with is Visual Studio 2022, and we also have projects with Visual Studio 2017. Additionally, we are working with business intelligence products projects; we have development projects to extract information from our databases and then produce new reports or new information using DTS or ETL projects with the integration services project.

We are using SQL Server as the database for all the applications that we have.

SQL Server is a good solution for me. It's easy to use, and I appreciate SQL Server Management Studio because it is user-friendly and has good performance. The services and patches are very easy to install, and I don't have any problem with the SQL Server database.

The most valuable aspect of SQL Server is very good. I have been working with SQL Server for a long time, and it works well for me as I am using it in different applications, such as web applications, Windows applications, or the data warehouse reporting. This is a large user base that we have accomplished with SQL Server.

Microsoft could improve SQL Server by integrating the tools better. I would appreciate using Microsoft Pro as it can integrate with Excel or, with a simple query, consume information from the database using Microsoft Excel. With new products such as Power BI, we can create new business intelligence reports, which is very good for me.

In my experience, I have been working with Microsoft products for about twenty years approximately.

Regarding support from Microsoft, I wouldn't rate it a ten because I don't have any issues with Microsoft Pro customer service. Until now, we have not had to use the customer service because all the products are managed by the corporation I work for, and the licenses are managed by my corporation.

Positive

The initial setup of SQL Server is easy. I have worked with Oracle too, which is more challenging to administer. The difference with SQL Server installation is that it is very easy and not complicated. There are some specifications we need to follow, such as configuring the memory, partitioning the disk, and saving data files and log files on different drives to improve performance. These are the tasks we need to follow to enhance the platform and ensure the server works better.

I don't have a specific amount or percentage for the return on investment with SQL Server, but I think the return is very good. All applications need our repository to provide services for our online business or our customers, so the return is good.

Approximately ten users are currently working with SQL Server in our company. We have ten users using a web application and data application with SQL Server as the database repository. I am also a database administrator and involved in development too. My roles include infrastructure tools, database server administrators, and web administrators.

Our version is Visual Studio Professional. Until now, we are not using the test project.

I'm not sure about the licensing pricing. When I consider moving to the cloud, if the price is different compared to my SQL, that is the only difference I can note between the two.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate this solution as eight.

My main use case for SQL Server is during my internship, where we are storing the database while developing in .NET language and using MS SQL language in SQL Server. We use SSMS provided by Microsoft every day to store the database, create tables, create the database, and handle all tasks like inserting and updating. SQL Server provides proper queries, and if we encounter any syntax error or related issue, it gives us detailed error messages indicating what the error is, why it occurred, and how to resolve it. Additionally, we utilize triggers, troubleshoot issues, and back up and restore the database with SSMS. My company's whole database is stored in SSMS.

Since I have been working for the last four months, I lacked initial knowledge about workflow because when I joined, the products were already created. My current task includes adding AI features, and I need to create stored procedures for these updates or insertions into the existing workflows, requiring alterations or modifications.

Before using SQL Server, I used MySQL and PostgreSQL. Upon starting my internship, I had to transition to MS SQL and am currently working with it.

The tools I find most useful include Microsoft SQL Server and its official extensions like Redgate, which provides a pro version. We can click on SP and open that procedure, with features like formatting assistance. For example, when we type SSF, it helps auto-complete with 'select star from table name,' making the process easier. When creating a procedure, it gives the complete procedure code with a basic syntax. In my company, we use Redgate, and it helps us identify errors quickly, which is crucial for us due to the significance of error handling.

This has greatly assisted my team by simplifying troubleshooting.

SQL Server could be improved by providing some extensions in SSMS like those in VS Code, specifically features that allow users to type SSF and generate 'select star from' automatically.

I have been using SQL Server for the last five to six months.

SQL Server is completely stable and reliable in my experience.

SQL Server's scalability allows it to handle growth and increased workloads effectively, though it sometimes takes longer to load data when starting or can get stuck when multiple tabs are opened.

I have not needed to contact customer support because any errors are resolved by the IT department in my company.

Before using SQL Server, I used MySQL and PostgreSQL.

I do not handle pricing and setup costs as these are managed by the IT department, where a ticket needs to be raised for SSMS installation along with Redgate expansions. Therefore, I am not informed about those aspects.

I have seen a return on investment with SQL Server as it has saved our team a lot of time. For instance, if debugging errors are not provided, we might have to comb through a 3,000-line stored procedure, but SQL Server highlights the error lines, allowing us to focus on finding issues more efficiently.

I do not handle pricing and setup costs as these are managed by the IT department, where a ticket needs to be raised for SSMS installation along with Redgate expansions. Therefore, I am not informed about those aspects.

My organization may have evaluated other options, but since joining, we have exclusively used SQL Server. The company has operated this way for about ten to eleven years, so I am not aware of other evaluations.

I rate SQL Server nine out of ten.

I rate it nine out of ten because during my fifth or sixth month, I did not have a comprehensive understanding of MS SQL, including database creation and management sequences. I view SQL Server as a mentor and motivator in my career journey and see it as an essential tool for my earning potential.

SQL Server is deployed in our organization in a hybrid setup.

We use Microsoft Azure as part of our hybrid setup.

Everything SQL Server offers is the best because it provides various backup tools.

SQL Server positively impacts our organization by aiding in data management. It is fully manageable since we are using MS SQL for our whole database, creating a master workspace and additional workspaces, all stored in MS SQL within SSMS.

My advice for others considering SQL Server is if you are a .NET developer needing to work with an MS SQL database, use SSMS SQL Server provided by Microsoft; it is the best tool you will ever use.

As for a business relationship, we are customers.

I use SQL Server for its user-friendly interface and cost-effectiveness compared to other databases like Oracle.

SQL Server is very simple due to its GUI, which is available for users. It allows for modifications and has execution plans available, along with options such as activity monitoring. This helps monitor queries and identify which indexes need to be created in the databases, tables, or columns to improve performance.

SQL Server's most valuable features are its user-friendly nature and cost-effectiveness. It is also simple to use, making it feasible for users.

Currently, I do not face any difficulties with SQL Server as all options and documentations are available. Labs are also available for training, especially as SQL moves to the cloud.

I have around four years of experience with SQL Server.

SQL Server is very stable. It is around eight or nine on a scale of one to ten in terms of stability.

The support from Microsoft for SQL Server is excellent. They are punctual and aim to resolve issues quickly based on the severity of the case.

Positive

This is my first experience with SQL Server. I have not used Oracle or any other database solutions.

Companies often prefer SQL Server for small applications due to its cost-effectiveness. It does not cost much compared to other solutions.

I recommend SQL Server since it is very user-friendly compared to other solutions. Even those without prior database experience can work on Azure chatbots, though they might face some difficulties initially.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

There are three variations available within SQL Server, the first one being that you can migrate your SQL instances from an on-premises version to the cloud. Second, you have an option to modernize the SQL platform and move to managing instances on the cloud. Third, SQL Server has an offering called Azure SQL, where you can deploy Azure instances in a flexible manner, and it can automatically scale up or down, depending upon the requirements. There are specific features you can license, as per the CPU cores and transactions you deal with in your business. There are various models of the tool that are available.

Features like autoscaling, business continuity, and security are beneficial. The tool's compatibility with almost all of the enterprise-class applications is also beneficial for users.

The tool is secure in nature. The security portfolios are changing day by day, and new security bugs are being released. The tool responds to users' requirements to deal with bugs and security issues. I feel that the tool should offer more security features to be made available. The security packages to be followed by users should be consolidated and sent to customers every day or every week so that they can have the security features updated. If security packages are available in a consolidated manner every month, it will be beneficial. I think there are certain areas of concern regarding the backup of the product that I have heard from my company's engineers. Sometimes, the tool doesn't support all the native features, and because of this, our company has to customize it to meet our requirements, which is a challenging process for our company's engineers. The tool has to be user-friendly- in terms of supporting the backup features and adapting to various backup environments.

I have been using SQL Server for 5 years.

It is a very stable solution. Hundreds and thousands of customers have adopted SQL Server since it is a very stable solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My company deals with organizations where the solution is used, with between 200 and 7,000 users.

The solution's technical support is available twenty-four hours, seven days a week, with the specific SLAs associated with the product. Apart from Microsoft, there are hundreds of solution integrators and managed service providers available worldwide who provide support for SQL servers.

The product's initial setup phase is very straightforward and nothing complex. Anybody who has a basic knowledge of SQL and Azure should be able to deploy the product.

SQL Server has a clear set of procedures to help users deploy the product. Initially, to identify your sizing or capacity requirements, after which you pick up the right setup from the cloud and then configure it with the right level of storage and the right level of CPU and memory before choosing the version of SQL you want to deploy, post which you will be ready to use the tool.

You can opt for a pay-as-you-go model, which allows you to pay as per your usage, which is a little expensive. You also have the option to purchase for a period of a year or three, which comes with discounted pricing. Depending upon your usage, you can use the pay-as-you-go model for a short period of time. For longer projects, we can opt for one-year or a three-year license.

Speaking about a project where SQL Server was essential in archiving our company's objectives, I feel that customers generally like to optimize their licenses while making sure they get the right level of operational excellence out of it. When you run the tool on an on-premises version, you are dependent upon operational resources or human resources to manage it. When the tool is in the cloud, it is managed by Azure, where you can optimize or effectively use your resources, which can provide you with cost advantage or cost optimization. As the tool is flexible in nature, you don't have to monitor it all the time for performance and capacity issues. The tool automatically scales and provides you with the required level of scalability, and it also has built-in DR and business continuity features. Even in the case of a disaster, it automatically moves to a DR location and provides you with the right level of business continuity and availability.

The product has built-in scalability features. Depending upon the number of transactions or usage, it automatically scales itself. You can also define specific parameters for how the tool needs to scale or how to respond to the requirements of the users. The tool has a good amount of scalability features.

Azure provides funding for doing a PoC, so if you are a little apprehensive about using it, then you can reach out to a local Azure partner, who will be able to help you with providing the funding from Azure. Azure's funding part is valid for a period of two to three weeks, so you can actually deploy it and play around to ensure that you are comfortable with what you are doing. Once you are satisfied with the results of the tool, you can go ahead and migrate or modernize your databases. I suggest others use the funding from Azure so that you can get a touch and feel for the product.

SQL Server comes under the category of enterprise tools. Most enterprise tools have connectivity available. If there is no connectivity available in the enterprise tools you use, you can develop APIs to integrate with other tools.

The benefits attached to the solution revolve around the fact that it offers scalability and reliability. The tool also helps with fault tolerance while offering business continuity features. The tool offers its users a fully secure environment. In banking, federal government, or insurance firms, I feel that the tool ensures that its users are fully secured, and you can apply whatever regulatory governance you want to apply to the tool.

 I rate the tool a nine out of ten.