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 use the product as a database, a data tool for everything. 

SQL Server, as a database, is great.

When it comes to the governmental sector, it is easily dealt with and can handle a big load of data. Specifically, after they added the capability of building a big data cluster from the SQL Server itself it's been great. 

If it was a database developer who was working with it or database admin, it provides a lot of tools and potential utilization that helps in doing the work in the right way.

Stability-wise, it's stable. 

If we want to expand to other servers and create an extra node, it's expandable. If you want to connect it with another, let's say, cloud node, it's also expandable with the cloud node. 

Security-wise, it provides most of the required security aspects in the market suchg as hashing, or encrypting, or hiding some data in tables (according to privileges and tools of the users). That can be done throughout it easily. 

It's an out-of-the-box solution. Lately, after they created the SQL Azure, if you use the Azure SQL Explorer, or SQL Server Management Studio, both of them can connect to the same database easily. It's natively built on the same core.

In my experience, while working with multiple sectors, such as banking, services, et cetera, there are some limitations for some sectors when dealing with the data.

It would be great if we were able to run it on multiple operating systems and not only stick with Windows. 

I've been using the solution for five or maybe six years. It's been a while. 

The stability is great. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is reliable. 

It's very easy to scale the solution in multiple ways. If a company needs to expand, it can do so easily.

I can't say it is easy to deploy as it depends on the admin, however, it is doable. Most of the databases, in general, require configuration. Therefore, if the admin knows what he's doing, then it's super easy.

A full deployment, depending on what is needed, might take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes. It's fast.

I can't speak to the pricing. I don't have any information on that.

It's my understanding that we pay for licensing on a yearly basis. 

There is also another added product they created, called Synapse, Azure Synapse Analytics. Both of them are similar to Microsoft PowerBI on-prem with SQL Server on-prem.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There are other competitors that are also doing a very good job as well.

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.

While we were still using the solution, we employed version 2008, which is a bit on the old side. 

We basically used the solution for hosting the database for Sage ERP.

Stability and usability, which is quite simple, are two of the solution's most valuable features. 

The solution could be better when it comes to security. 

The solution is part of Windows services, which means that if these should stop running, the database system, too, would be affected. This makes it very crucial to constantly monitor the SQL Server, something which reflects on cheap personnel time. 

Scalability could be better.

Although it comes with a cost, using the most recent version is highly advisable, since it would ensure a certain measure of bug fixes and stability. The sole issue would involve the cost, as this is expensive. 

When it comes to integratable features, the monitoring should be addressed. 

We used SQL Server for nearly six years, although we have since moved to another platform. We have used the solution at some point within the last 12 months. 

The solution has good stability, although my advice is to use the most recent version towards this end, to provide for bug fixes. This will ensure some stability. 

The scalability could be improved. 

As support would have involved a licensing fee, we opted not to make use of this. 

We find there is ample documentation online to allow us to resolve issues through independent research.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Although it comes with a cost, using the most recent version is highly advisable, since it would guarantee a measure of bug fixes and provide some stability. The pricing is expensive, though, this being the sole issue. 

We chose not to make use of support, as this would have incurred a licensing fee. 

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten. 

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.