SQL Server Reviews

We are using the latest version.

We can use the solution for the same application. On the database side we have Microsoft SQL and on the operating system side we have 2019.

I want to see one improvement and this involves the replication between the DC and DR. We have limited options at the moment and it does not lend sufficient support for the number of databases. This means we have a huge number of databases, topping approximately 2,000. For the moment, this particular replication is not supported by SQL. 

The support number of databases needs to be increased, as well as the database number of databases that it supports. That support cannot be found when it comes to the replication between the DC and DR. 

I have been using SQL Server for ten years. 

The solution is sufficiently stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

When it comes to the speed, knowledge and customer-friendliness of the technical support, we feel these to be good. 

We did not use other solutions prior to SQL Server. 

The initial setup is easy, flawless. 

It lasts a single day. 

We handed the implementation on our own. 

This involved a technical team of 15 people. 

There is a need to pay for the license for SQL Server. We have an enterprise license, which we consider to be fine. 

We have 10,000 customers. 

I would recommend the solution to others. 

SQL Server is good and I rate it as a nine out of ten. 

I love the developer version. Microsoft tells you about all the cool things they provided for everybody. You can develop and do anything with it. It's really good to learn. Oracle will not give you that much freedom, and Microsoft really kills it. 

You don't do anything with it but develop, learn, break, and push it to its limits. If there are problems, you show Microsoft or ask them, "what's going on here?" There is good community support for the developer edition, and that's what I really appreciate. You can teach people about it without limitations. You can have small databases created. You can keep it for a year and then work on it. It's a good thing for learners and developers.

The price could be better. It costs a lot, and competing databases like Postgres are free.

I have been using SQL Server for about ten years.

There are problems in all systems, and I don't see any difference between open source and proprietary solutions. SQL Server, Postgres, and Oracle are all vulnerable. There are no known issues per se, but any system can be broken. There is nothing special about this database.

SQL Servers and other databases are all scalable. I just don't see any problem with scalability.

Whenever we have issues, we talk directly with Microsoft. They are responsive, and they help.

I'm more into open source solutions, and I love Postgres. I've worked as a database administrator as well. But I really hate all the tools used to manage performance or backup or just any of those disaster, recovery, and availability solutions. I hate them. They really impose a lot of overhead in a demonstration and aren't really flexible. When you're in the cloud, you don't have to worry about most of those things. 

Some of them still exist, but the cloud providers do provide them and you stick to that. You enhance them or add some more features, but really the most hated feature is, making sure that your database really can recover from many kinds of disasters. Resiliency, the most important part and when that is really managed by the cloud online, the overhead costs  are removed. The rest is really easy. Performance is okay, and there are indicated spots for data because I work with financial data and a lot of it is our important critical data. So, the cloud is really the best thing that happened to us.

When it comes to the initial setup, most of them can be automated. For example, most setup settings for progressions, management, disaster and recovery, failover, and failback. Most of those things can be automated and provisioned into one kind of pipeline. Connecting that data to an application and even provisioning from the code repository through Jenkins. Those things are really easy to automate.

It costs a lot.

I would advise potential users to use SQL Server with Microsoft Azure. I don't recommend managing it locally.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a seven.

Usually, we use a lot of the vendor software, like ManageEngine, and stuff like that. They use Postgres, however, I prefer to use Microsoft's SQL server. We have a couple of servers and we integrate that information into it. I can run reporting and analysis off of that.

There's a lot of great features. I like T-SQL, which is wonderful. The backups are excellent. There's a lot of things that are much easier to manage. All of the features and functions within the SQL language itself, the store procedures, I really, really enjoy. The security has been excellent.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

The stability is very good.

We find it easy to scale if we need to.

I would like to see better integration between their link server and other platforms, such as IBM, due to the fact that, a lot of times, you want to set up a linked server so you can be on SQL and pull data off of another server using that link server. Sometimes they don't play well together. There just needs to be better integration for those types of situations.

I've been using the solution for about eight or nine years at this point. 

The stability is great. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. The performance is great. 

Scaling is easy if you need to do it. You simply set up a cluster and you can just grow it up.

In our organization, all the end-users are pretty much integrated into it and using it. As far as developers, there are two developers and me that are using it.

We haven't used tech support as we used to have a business partner that wanted us to talk to them instead. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be if you need assistance. 

Here at the company, they used Postgres, and what I didn't care about it was that it was okay, but it didn't integrate with a lot of the other applications. I felt Microsoft did a better job of that.

The setup is pretty straightforward. The only thing that sometimes gets weird is if you have somebody that's needing an ODBC driver from another type of application back to the SQL server. It's usually that other application trying to figure out what it needs to connect to SQL. It's not really SQL's fault.

We are customers and end-users.

We are using both the latest version and a previous version of the solution. I don't have the exact version numbers on hand. 

I would advise new users first to get help implementing it unless you know the solution well, as there's so much that it can do. A lot of times you can actually make a little mistake. Say if you're going to go in a certain direction, if you get some advice, you may be much happier going in another direction completely.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been quite satisfied with its capabilities. It's an excellent product that still has room for growth.

We primarily use the solution mainly for databases on all types of applications.

SQL is the all around leading Database server

The solution is very stable. 

The scalability of the product is great.

We'd like the deployment process to be better in the future. 

The licensing is pretty expensive.

I've been using the solution for 20 years at this point. It's been two decades. We've used it for a while now.

The solution is stable and the performance is great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The product scales well. If you need to expand it, you can do so.

We have 900 to 1,000 people using it currently.

I'm more on the architecture side and therefore do not directly deal with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

We also use Oracle. We've used it for over a decade already.

The deployment could be easier.

While the deployment only takes about 15 minutes, you have to follow up with a lot of configuration.

We handled the implementation ourselves. We did not enlist the assistance of any integrators or consultants. It was all handled in-house.

We're paying too much for licensing at this time. They need to work on the pricing. They could be cheaper, however, it's also difficult to run the licenses in the right way.

We pay licensing fees on a yearly basis. 

We're a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with SQL. 

While everything is currently on-premises, we're making moves to shift to the cloud. 

We're using the 2019 and 2016 versions of the product.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. In general, we've been quite happy with its capabilities.

The solution is an RDBMS and can be used to simplify customers' requirements for a back-end database. The main function of the solution is to store information from front-end users.

The most valuable feature of the solution, compared to other RDBMS solutions, such as Oracle MySQL or IBM DB2, it is more user-friendly and has backward compatibility. For example, if you have an application that requires an old version of SQL Server and you have the latest version of the license, you are able to install and use it in backward compatibility mode. They keep supporting the existing legacy application. Additionally, the solution is simple and if it is configured properly it performs very well. 

I have used the solution for approximately six years.

I find the solution to be very stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support is only provided to the customers having a subscription-based license with a Software Assurance server. For other forms of licensing the solution will not provide support. 

I have previously used other RDBMS solutions, such as Oracle MySQL, Maria DB, PostgreSQL, and IBM DB2.

When comparing PostgreSQL, Oracle MySQL, and Microsoft SQL, Microsoft SQL has an advantage over the other two server databases because it provides a graphical user interface by default.

The initial setup of the solution is very easy and the time it takes depends on the architecture required. If the deployment of a cluster is required then the setup may take up to three hours, whereas standard environment deployment needs half an hour. 

The solution can be installed by our selves but the use of an integrator makes it much easier. 

The solution requires authorization in either the form of perpetual licensing or subscription-based licenses for two years. If a perpetual license version is purchased then customers have it to the end of life, whereas a subscription-based called server with Software Assurance, has to be renewed every two years. 

The areas that need improvement are with regards to the commercial aspect of the solution, the licensing cost could be reduced in order to help customers to adopt it.

I would recommend this solution. However, the customer has to make sure it fits their use case.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution to manage our database and store information. I use another platform for more specific needs.

Within our organization, there are roughly 10-12 employees using this solution. 

SQL Server consumes a lot of resources. You need to keep an eye on the number of resources involved. It expands and uses all of the memory available on the server. For this reason, I install it on separate machines.

Also, the ability to connect with other environments needs to be improved. 

I have been using SQL Server for nearly 10 years.

Scalability-wise, it's okay.

I haven't really experienced any issues that required the assistance of technical support. 

I also use MySQL — the open-source version. I started using SQL Server because we required some special functionality for a specific project. 

The initial setup was not complicated. You can do it without any external support. 

I installed the entire solution myself within 20-50 minutes.

The price could always be lower. 

I evaluated Oracle, but I didn't like it — I prefer Microsoft. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. 

We are using SQL Server for the backend of our SAP and are planning on moving to a cloud version soon.

This solution has helped our organization by providing a backbone for our SAP. We would not be able to operate without it.

We have found the solution valuable because we are able to easily create a query, shrink, backup, and make new tables.

We are using an older version of SQL Server and the migration to a newer version could be made easier.

If you are a new user then this solution could be difficult, they could improve by making the overall usage easier.

In an upcoming release, they could improve the ability to customize the solution.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately ten years.

We have not experienced any problems with the stability of this solution.

SQL Server is scalable.

We have not used the support from Microsoft. However, we did have freelance support a few times.

The installation is very easy. We did not have any challenges.

The price of the solution is very expensive. If I went with the cloud version of SQL a license would cost me approximately 11,000 Riyals per month.

We have a team that has evaluated other solutions before we chose SQL Server, such as Oracle.

I would recommend this solution. However, Oracle has a good reputation for quality that might be a better choice.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I have been working on SQL Server for installations, configuring for developers, and for creating backup jobs from the MBF files.

The solution is very easy to use.

SQL Server needs to improve in performance and monitoring because there are no specific monitoring solutions to detect and analyze events for issues in the database. You have to use another monitoring solution. If Microsoft could provide an update to this solution or provide a monitoring solution specifically for SQL Server, it would be very valuable.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

I have found the SQL Server stable.

The solution is highly scalable. You are able to implement a SQL cluster mechanism for replicating the data between two nodes of the SQL Server. If one of the nodes is down the second node becomes active.

We have approximately 20 developers working directly with SQL Server and approximately 1,000 end-users that are working on the application that is behind the SQL Server.

The technical support is good. We had a big problem and after an investigation, we could not find the solution. We needed to make use of Microsoft support team and open a specific case on the Microsoft panel. They were able to provide solutions for solving this issue.

I have used MySQL.

The installation is not very complex. However, the process could take a long time because you have to follow the step-by-step instructions for the installation. The time it takes to do the installation is approximately two days.

There is a license required for this solution. One of the problems is for smaller businesses to purchases a license because it is expensive for a lot of them to afford.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.