SQL Server Reviews

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 use SQL Server to manage and store information.

They have improved the UI and ease of accessing the database and server which is good.
You can load it up and start using it from the very minute it is implemented.

I have been using SQL Server for two and a half years.

SQL Server is stable. We have more resources that are using it, I am more familiar with SQL Server. I have been using it for a long time. Most of the time it has been stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 30 people in my organization using this solution.

The technical support is okay.

The installation is straightforward.

We have administrators and engineers that do support the solution.

We are on a monthly subscription and the price could improve. However, the price has worked out well in some deployments. The problem is you never know what kind of services have been installed and you have to be in touch with many people, such as which servers are active or which are not. I did face a couple of issues in terms of subscriptions and the pricing model. They have improved over time.

I would recommend this solution to others. My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is you have to consider the industry demand and the benefits or advantages of a solution before you choose, for example, Oracle or Microsoft.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We use SQL Server as a database management system for all of our projects.

While this is a reliable product, it has room for improvement.

Although Microsoft SQL was accessible in some projects, we did not use it everywhere. It is determined by the project. It's quite beneficial in some circumstances, but it couldn't support SQL databases in others, consequently, we used other suppliers like Oracle, Informix DB, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and others.

We have been using SQL Server for quite some time now.

We use it both on-premises and in the cloud. It is dependent on the projects.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

SQL Server scales well.

In the future, we may expand our usage.

I don't have any issues with the technical support.

We evaluated each product after using it, starting with Informix DB and ending with Oracle.

Oracle, Informix DB, PostgreSQL, and MySQL are among the products we use.

It's quite easy to install.

Completing the installation is not an issue.

My position is not related to installation, but if it is necessary, I am capable of doing it.

It requires the purchase of a license. Our company's products all have licenses.

It is appropriate for small and medium-sized businesses.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are using SQL Server for our financial application package.

One of the best features of SQL Server is the efficient retrieval of information.

We want to move to Azure, and the solution could be made better to make the process easier for the migration from on-premise to the cloud.

I have used SQL Server for approximately seven years.

SQL Server is stable. However, Microsoft products have a tendency to crash. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of stability.

The scalability of SQL Server is good.

The solution is straightforward to install.

The price of SQL Server could be better in the African market. The licensing model needs to be improved, it is confusing.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

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. 

It's a normal DMS, so it can be used everywhere you want to use any RDBMS or relational database. It's for normal transactions.

SQL Server could integrate better with other platforms.

I've been using SQL Server for the last six months. Earlier we used DB2, but now we use this one.

SQL Server's performance is fine.

Microsoft support is fine.

We don't deal with the setup because we are developers. The system or admin team does all those things. So I don't have any idea.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10. We haven't had any issues, but it depends on the use case. So I would recommend it depending on your use case.