SQL Server Reviews

We are using it for storing important data. 

Its security is good. The GUI of SQL Server is also very good.

It is very costly, and that's the reason people are moving away from SQL Server. 

They have started using Linux, and Linux is the way forward for SQL Server. They have to invest a lot in that.

I have been using this solution for almost 10 years.

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is good.

I haven't spoken to their support team in the last three years, but prior to that, their support was good.

I also have experience with Postgres. The main difference between SQL Server and Postgres is that Postgres is open source. The Community version of Postgre is basically free. Postgres is very easy to set up and very easy to scale. It is quite a good database.

It is very easy.

It is expensive in terms of licensing costs and pricing. If you want to scale SQL Server, it is very expensive.

We probably have to pay extra for technical support. We also have to pay for the license of Windows on which the SQL Server resides, which is an extra cost.

I would recommend SQL Server for its stability, scalability, and ease of use. I would rate it an eight out of 10.

Our use case is creating data warehouses using the SQL Server database.

The solution is deployed on-premises and on public and private clouds.

The solution has a user-friendly environment and supporting functionalities. It also has great memory and processing databases.

Other than Synapse and the other version of SQL Server, they face some problems while processing the data. For example, the one issue we face is that when we need to process the queue, it's costly with Azure and SQL Servers. We also face some memory issues with that.

I have been using this solution for more than eight years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have a different technical team that deals with issues. So we only communicate the issue to them, and they communicate with the team.

Setup is very easy, especially compared to Oracle.

Synapse is a bit costly. If I compare it with different databases, I think it's a reasonable price. If I'm talking about licensing of the Oracle, it seems that normal organizations have it and some smaller organizations can also afford it, which is a good thing.

I have also evaluated Oracle.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I always recommend SQL Server. To whoever asks me, I will say, "Just go for it." The databases are good. In terms of pricing, SQL Server is good. In terms of functionality, it gives you all the basic requirements. You can also integrate it with different applications, which is an advantage.

We primarily use the solution as a backend server.

There are a few applications of the Oracle product for our data sitting on the SQL Server as well. 

It's useful as a backend server.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

The stability of the product needs to be improved. It's really not stable enough.

In Microsoft, the Active-Active options are not available. There are a lot of requirements that are coming right from the customer, which may not be provided by Microsoft. There are a few use cases where we do need the Active-Active options instead of Active-Passive, yet those kinds of options are not available for Microsoft.

We've been working with the solution for going on five years.

We've struggled with the stability of the product. We'd like for it to be more stable and reliable. 

The scalability is very good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

We are a customer and an end-user.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. While the scalability is there, the solution is lacking a few aspects that customers really need.

All of our .NET applications and some of our third-party applications require a single server database, AutoCAD, and things like that. Our custom apps are the largest estate of databases.

In our production environments, we're on version 17. I've worked with the most recent version but not in a production environment. 

I like the availability group functionality. We are setting up more clusters using availability groups. The enterprise licensing or Software Assurance makes it a little bit cheaper as well. It is nice to have that read-only copy for reporting and everything else.

They've been adding a lot of great functionality such as columnstore indexes to improve the way indexes are rebuilt and to be able to do online index rebuilds. All those are great features.

On the SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) side, I have noticed more bugs in terms of being able to connect to our SQL servers. I can't tell how many times my recent server list got dropped or cleaned out. It is a pain, and it would be nice to have that recent connect list when you connect in. For whatever reason, once in a while, I get a hard error, and it'll close. When I go back in, everything is cleared out. It is annoying when you are working with more than a hundred database instances.

I have been working with this solution for probably 18 years.

Everything is pretty much scripted out, so it is pretty straightforward for us. 

They've been adding a lot of great functionality, and hopefully, they continue down that path. We don't use a lot of the more advanced features at this point, but for what we're doing right now, it's working really great with availability groups and other features. 

Its usability has gotten a lot better after version 14. There were a lot of great updates after version 14 for SQL or query performance with the engine.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We primarily use SQL Server as a database management system. 

This solution is deployed on-prem. 

One of the most valuable features of SQL Server is that it's easy to use. 

SQL Server could be improved with cheaper licensing because it's very expensive. 

We have been using SQL Server since 2016, so more than five years. 

This solution is stable. 

Before implementing SQL Server, we used Oracle. We switched to SQL Server because it had good integration. 

The installation is straightforward. I was able to handle deployment and maintenance by myself. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

For licensing, we pay yearly. The licensing is very expensive, and it should be cheaper. 

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others, as long is it meets their requirements. 

SQL Server can be used for managing and storing information.

I have a lot of databases with more than one terabyte of information and we use technology, such as Stretch database to switch out the information to Azure databases with this type of technology.

SQL Server could improve the integration with nonrational database solutions, such as MongoDB.

I have been using SQL Server for eight years.

SQL Server has good performance. It is one of the best features.

We have approximately 300 instances of SQL Server. 

I have approximately five customers using this solution.

I currently have one ticket open with Microsoft support and I have been waiting about two days. However, it's not a critical incident. The technical support they provide us is good.

In the latest version of SQL Server, Microsoft has split the product. For example, if you want to start with the engine or the reporting server you have to download it separately.  I think that the installation is easier on the new versions. There are other kinds of options that you can set up in the installation progress. For example, the number of 10 DV files or the limit of maximum use of memory.

The installation process takes approximately 10 minutes.

There is a license to use this solution. However, the model is not easy to understand. There is a guide you have to read about all the information on how it works. If you read this documentation, you can understand how it works. We are paying for our SQL Servers by CPU cores with an enterprise license.

If a new company wants to implement SQL Server, they need to know that there should be a person who has all the knowledge about DBA position, such as how the SQL Server will be set up because I have a lot of customers and when I checked they have a lot of bad options or practicing in their SQL Servers instance. If someone wants to start with SQL Server, they have to improve and have good knowledge about this technology. It's important to have knowledge about this technology. They should take some courses or maybe have a person who has all the knowledge about this technology with certification, it's the most important. It's not easy to keep up to date with the best practice from a provider, in this case, Microsoft.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We are consultants and users of this solution and we deploy both on cloud and on-prem. The primary use case of this solution is for its Health Check feature. I'm the company owner and CIO.

We assist companies to improve the performance of their servers. We're generally able to improve performance by 40%. 

I like the Always On tool which improves the SQL server availability. We cross-link servers with Oracle, MySQL and other platforms using PolyBase as a service to join with big data systems like Spark.

I think the treatment of database storage could be improved. There is also an intermediate locked file that prevents users from inserting or writing something in the database that slows things down. I'd like to see the Perform Volume Maintenance Task made available for locked files. It would mean that the SQL server can directly grow files. Without it, you have to go to the local system account, which can disrupt users. It's connected to the local security policy. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

This solution has fantastic stability. 

The scalability is great, and you can use several servers concurrently without using duplication services. Our company is small but we manage around 30,000 users. We have 10 people involved in maintenance and deployment. 

We are part of the Microsoft team in Spain and sometimes we have to call support with a specific question but not very often. In the past 12 months I've only made contact a couple of times. 

I previously used Informix DB because Linux was not the best tool for enterprise when I began working in the industry. Microsoft was working on new technologies and when they came out with SQL I switched to it. I've had the certification on SQL for several years already. 

The initial setup is relatively easy but it depends on the situation, and sometimes requires some planning. You can configure SQL after you've deployed on cloud. Implementation can take some time because it's not just the installation of the SQL server which can be done in less than an hour. The implementation of the database systems can take several days or weeks depending on the organization. Our consultants have more than 12 years of experience working as DBAs, so we carry out the installation. 

In a standard package, you need to buy two core packs. If you need four core packs the price is around € 8,000. There are more options in the cloud where fees are around € 60 a month. The cost is scaled and if you're deploying in the cloud you need to buy a machine infrastructure as a service. We only sell the license across the cross solution provider (CSP) program. If you have less than 25 users, you can buy an SQL standard per server license where the cost is around €1,200 approximately.

I rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

We provide support services to clients. We find that some of our clients are running the latest system while others are still on Windows 2016, others are moving to 2019. Some other clients take time to upgrade. If I interact with five clients, I'll basically be in five different environments.

Our use case for the SQL Server is for transaction processing. We store all the transactions that occur. For example, if you now purchase something from the point of sale, all the information about the good you are purchasing gets stored on the SQL Server. 

When you perform a transaction that information is stored at the bank that owns the point of sale and perhaps even your bank, where your money is will be stored in a SQL Server.

All the people in all of the organizations, which are involved in the process use SQL Server.

If your transaction goes through my server, I store part of the transaction there, and if I have to route that transaction to Visa or Mastercard, they have their own SQL Server, and they also store the transaction up until you get receive your goods at the particular merchant. Almost everyone in that transaction stores the information on their respective Microsoft SQL server.

The most valuable feature would most likely be querying. We query a lot, we use a lot of stored procedures. As for other features, such as replication and all other more fancy features we don't use them the most. I do not know, but perhaps the DBAs would be the best people who know of the features that they use, but as far as how I use it, it's just for querying and running stored procedures. We use the bare minimum features.

We do not know all the features of SQL Server.

If SQL Server could perhaps run on Linux, that would be good. Most of us prefer Linux and I've used a lot of Linux. I understand that SQL Server is quite powerful, but I'm not sure if the functionality is there, but if it could be used in an open-source type of environment, it would be very good.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

SQL Server is stable and is a high-performance database. We do hundreds of transactions per second, it's fairly robust, it does not struggle. Mostly, if your hardware is strong enough and you've set it up properly, then you can actually perform a lot of transactions per second on a SQL Serving installation.

The scalability of SQL Server is relatively easy. if you are in a Microsoft environment, then I think that it relatively it should not be that difficult. However, I haven't been on a project whereby we have had to scale.

SQL Server is suitable for all companies in my experience, ranging from small to large enterprises businesses.

I have not dealt much with technical support, because most of the time when we have issues, we go online. If it's a Microsoft issue, then we go and read up what that issue is. If there's an error, then there are places on the Microsoft support system where we are able to enter in the error code and it is able to tell you why you have that problem. As far as dealing or interacting with people or technical support from Microsoft, I have not done that.

I use MySQL and when comparing the solutions I have found the SQL Server is much more professional, and it's quite big and robust. MySQL is a community of people who are contributing to a project and you have to hack them in order for it to work. But it is quite good as well.

The installation is straightforward and not complex. However, it depends on some of the features that you may want to use. I think it is simply because you only need to tick whatever functionalities you want to use and the ones that you don't need to use, you don't select them.

Most of the time we are doing the implementation from scratch. If it's a big bank, then they would normally have dedicated people who deal with SQL. However, it depends on the customer.

There is some maintenance that is required, such as updates and tuning. We need to find ways of filling up the data so that it doesn't get stale but normally with regular updates, you should be fine.

I cannot comment on the price because I find that the organization already has a license when I arrived. I have not had a sneak peek at the price. When you join an organization, they tell you we are using the 2018 version and that someone purchased it. I don't know who purchased it, I'm not privy to that kind of information.

My advice to companies that are wanting to implement the solution is they have to make sure that they've have a proper skillset. When you have the proper skillset or people who are certified it would make for a better investment into the product. When you are certified, then you know the system in and out and you should be able to have the best implementation for the type of business you have.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.