SQL Server Reviews

We use SQL Server to process a lot of data. We are using versions and 2015 and 2018.

We like the whole product and we use most of the features.

Indexing, as well as integration, are areas of this product that need improvement.

We have been using SQL Server for approximately five years.

It's a stable solution. Stability is one of the most valuable features.

It's somewhat scalable.

We don't have any issues with technical support.

We have used SQL Server from day one, along with OpenSQL. We used them both regularly.

We don't use Oracle often but we do have a few areas where it is used.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

We have experience and did find it to be challenging.

We do multiple deployments which require three or four teams.

The cost is high and because it's an expensive product, we are in the process of moving towards open-source solutions.

We have evaluated MongoDB and are in the process of transforming ourselves.

We will continue using SQL Server for some things but not everything. Most of our applications will be migrated to MongoDB and others.

I am not in the position to recommend SQL Server to anybody. Rather, I am more in the area of quality assurance. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

We developed a product that is using five or six databases supported on SQL Server. 

It is a very user-friendly solution. It is easy to manage the databases and troubleshoot any issue. It is a perfect solution for the volume or transactions that we need to manage.

The way to make cursors and manage raw data in rows can be improved. Currently, the way to construct or build these cursors is very hard, and you can waste memory. You need a highly skilled person to make it more efficient.

It can also have support for Cubes, which is the organization of data in different dimensions by using MDX languages.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is very stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of stability.

It is scalable. You can get scalability by using the link servers, or you can create another instance in another server and make a link with that server. It is very quick.

We have around 50 users of this solution.

I have not interacted with them.

Its initial setup is easy. It takes a week. One of the things that you need to pay attention to is the collection.

It is a nice product. You can use it as you want. If you don't know how to use it, you will waste it. Oracle is more powerful than this, but it is great for our needs.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

On-premises

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.

Public Cloud

I use SQL Server for .NET. We have ERP software in the background and we use the SQL Server for its creation.

SQL Server and their offers are very good. You can switch over, export, and do other things. I got access from users and it is very flexible to use.

SQL Server is technically good. For questions or other queries, we go through the internet and they explain it there. I think the structure of their product is good.

I have been using SQL Server for one year and a month.

It's stable. It was very easy for me to handle it.

The free version of SQL Server is time-limited before updating to the paid version. So, sort of more access and more work in your database to help process most of the time. It's better to purchase it for more secure functions.

We have a technical support engineer who handles maintenance and security for SQL Server. I think Microsoft's technical support is also very good.

It's a straightforward installation. I installed SQL Server 2012, 2013 and 2016.

The usability of the free version is limited. They also have some guidelines on how to use the paid ones. You still have to check your IT requirements after purchasing it. We are using a licensed one right now, which has more functionality than the free version.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

We use the solution as a database for saving and managing data and applications.

Most valuable features include: high availability, clustering, save backup and recovery.

Although I am satisfied with the solution, some clients have asked us to resolve technical issues, such as those involving silver solution and replication.

I have been working with SQL Server for four or five years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I am satisfied with the solution's partner support. 

I am  satisfied with SQL Server.

Use of alternative solutions varies with the client involved. Some make use of all that SQL Server has to offer, while others employ everything in Oracle Database. We have managed to resolve any issues they have encountered in the two cases in which they have approached us. 

When examining Oracle or IBM db2, Oracle and SQL Server are generally the prefered products. 

While I find the setup and installation to be easy, others may find it difficult. 

I am only a technician and responsible for the installation, so I cannot comment on the licensing, although there are others in my company who are better qualified to do so. 

The solution is mostly deployed for our clients on-premises. 

We are satisfied with the documentation. 

My advice is that one adhere to the documentation before doing installation. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

We use SQL Server to import data from different source systems. Depending on requirements, you act as the resource and can schedule jobs in the Azure environment. The server can be stopped when not required so there's no cost when it's not being used. We make use of the pipeline to put the data into the SQL Azure environment and extract it to the server. I'm the associate manager.

The best feature in SQL Server is the CDC mechanism for adding data incrementally. Another good feature is the ability to store any type of data in SQL Server, it's a big advantage.

You need to be careful if you have a very large amount of data, because the platform can be degraded if you're not on top of it. Oracle handles that issue better and it's the main problem I have with SQL Server. The performance should be better.

This is a stable product. 

This product is scalable, we have between 20 and 30 users in our company. We'll continue to use this product. 

We haven't needed to contact technical support. If there is an issue we use the different SQL forums and we can easily fix issues. 

The initial setup is straightforward, you can install with basic knowledge. Installation doesn't take long at all, I did it myself. 

There are no annual licensing fees, you pay when you use the product. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10.

Public Cloud

We use SQL Server with Sage products.

It is used by our finance team and also human resources.

the database management tool is very easy to use and largely meets expectations

As SQL Server could not support the number of connections we desired, we were forced to go with Oracle. This is an area that needs to be improved.

for 04 Years now 

The solution could be more stable

The performance in terms of simultaneous connection must be reviewed.

We do not pay for technical support.

No

The initial setup is time-efficient and can be done independently.

There is no need for developers or managers to deploy and maintain the solution. One or two systems' administrators are sufficient for its deployment.

The deployment is on-premises. We installed the solution on a server and this on the Windows server. The user is provided an application for connecting to it.

great

The licensing involves a one-time fee.

We evaluated Oracle as an alternative.

For my part, SQL Server is aimed at small and medium-sized businesses, I would give it an eight out of ten.

I would not recommend it for a large company that has to support more than 40 simultaneous bi-directional connections to the database

On-premises

SQL Server is the database for the transactional database that is being used.

The solution can be used for the BI, the data warehouse part as well, but mostly I have seen it used for the transaction data being stored by the DBMS part of it.

The solution is very easy to use, because even the technical engineers that we get are able to use it more efficiently. I like the programming interface they have where they help us get the table names that we are dealing with, and the field names in that particular table. 

The interface for building the queries or writing the store procedures is good.

If I compare the solution with current technology needs, like NoSQL, that have been prevailing now, they could improve it so there could be a single solution, where we could deal with a single database for both transactional as well as for the in-memory needs that we have.

For the integration part, additional interfaces would be an improvement. If SQL Server could expose certain APIs or certain interfaces which can be used for integration with the warehouse solution, then it would be great.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The team needed for implementing the solution depends on the project size and functionalities needed. But as far as the DB administrator, generally, we use a single resource for each project. One database engineer is sufficient for optimizing the query or indexes or building any database scripts.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises