SQL Server Reviews

We are using SQL Server to build and store our whole company's data in our data warehouse.

SQL Server is very good, it can be used as a transactional database and used to support the data warehouse. Additionally, the ANSI-compliant satisfies our database properties.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately eight years.

I do not think SQL Server is suited for a typical database warehouse environment. However, people do use SQL Server for data warehouse environments but the best use case is for very small databases. If somebody wants to store more than 10 TB of data querying then the performance really degrades. The performance should be improved in the future to allow more scalability.

The scalability issue could be why many are moving to solutions, such as Teradata or other high-end on-premise solutions. Additionally, cloud solutions offer better scalability options.

The technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you are looking for a small setup and do not want an open-source solution or invest too much money in your database then SQL Server is a very good choice.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Teradata.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

While I don't like SQL Server so much, the selection was for clients so we needed to utilize it. Of course, one thing is that as great with this and other Microsoft products is that it's quite well documented and there are also light versions available. If you need to do something, you can also try it somehow on your own computer and so on. 

If I'm helping a client to define what they need to have or what they need to do in a public sector procurement process quite often we cannot fix the database as it would be limiting the competition. That's why we never rule out the SQL Server; it should be included as an option at this level.

The solution is stable. 

I haven't had issues with sizing or scaling.

If it would be more powerful it would be pretty nice. The performance is not always the best. 

Whenever we were setting up the databases, there were some character problems that did not exist on some of the other solutions. However, the exact issues are hard to recall and list. I prefer Linux solutions. That said, when we began the previous project, Microsoft SQL Server was not available for Linux platforms yet.

Nowadays, it's my understanding that there are different versions. I haven't been checking if the current versions are supporting Transact-SQL and stuff like that. I remember that when we had the first Linux-based SQL Servers were introduced, they were, of course, a bit limited from the feature point of view. Whenever it is Unix or Linux or whatever platform, it's easier to manage them and to handle them whenever you are doing remote work. 

I'm not so big fan of the Microsoft platforms as a server. However, whenever it's needed then it's needed. If you are a consultant, you need to adjust your whole mindset to whatever it's needed.

I've used the solution, approximately, for several years. However, there have been gaps. There are different phases, however, I could count something like seven years where I was in an architect position in any project where this server was utilized. 

For the needs we had for the client it was sufficient. Whatever we needed to have - whether more server or more virtual server, the performance for the platform wasn't as good as I would like. I'm not entirely satisfied.

I haven't been utilizing the scale capabilities. I don't have a clear impression on that, however, for our purposes, we've never had an issue.

I've never dealt with technical support. The databases were handled by the service provider or service operator of our clients. We have a public sector client and they have their partner who is handling or is responsible for the platforms. Therefore, if we had a problem with the platform, the right bureaucratic way to go about getting a resolution is that we contact the service provider they have. They probably contact Microsoft. The process is bureaucratic.

I'm also familiar with other servers such as Oracle. While we must do as the client wants or needs, if I could choose, I would probably utilize databases like Oracle or open-source databases more often. It depends on the cases. That said, quite often I'm in a position where I cannot suggest the technology, so I use what the client requests.

We didn't pay anything for it as it was provided for our client by the provider. I cannot say about the enterprise licenses or anything. When we began the work and we needed it for our own machines, I prefer the solutions which are available, of course, as open-source or are free. And Microsoft had this express version of their database which we can utilize as well. In that sense, it is okay, however, of course, in general, I don't know.

I've been working for a client as a consultant so I'm helping them with deployments. With one client, we're using on-premises deployments. Our client has their own service provider or service operator so they have their own IT partner who is handling their databases. If I have understood it correctly, the databases were on-premises for our client, however, it's a bit complicated when you are having and dealing with large-scale public sector actors in Finland. There are plenty of kinds of players involved.

Whether or not I would recommend the solution depends. If you are utilizing some solutions where you need the Microsoft platform-based database, it's completely okay. And if you have, for example, the solutions where you have utilized Transact-SQL or whatever, it's okay. However, if you have this kind of situation where you can make your own choices freely, you have options. And if you're utilizing Java or C, et cetera, quite often the path or logic would go towards some of the databases on the Microsoft side.

There is no clear answer. Quite often when you begin to think about your solution or you think about what you are building, the database is the first thing you decide on. There are other factors too, such as a business case or if you're just building from scratch and so on and so on. I wouldn't like to say that I never would recommend it, however, if you are building everything from the scratch and you can make all the decisions, likely it is not the first option you have or I'd suggest. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We use this solution as our database.

It could be more stable.

I have been using SQL Server for four or five years.

SQL Server is a stable solution, but it could be improved.

Similar to Microsoft SQL, it is easy to scale.

We have a team of 300 people who are using this solution.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I used MySQL.

I was not involved in the installation.

We have an IT team to complete the installation.

There is no licensing cost for SQL Server.

I am a user of this solution but I don't know that I understand it well enough to recommend it to others because I did not install it.

I would rate SQL Server a five out of ten.

We use a tool called Tosca for automation and all the automation artifacts we are saving are on the SQL Server.

The solution is easy to use and provides similar features to other competitors.

SQL Server could improve by increase the performance, it cannot handle large amounts of data. I did not find any additional features compared to others solutions.

I have been using this solution for a few years.

The solution is stable.

We have not scaled the solution extensively, but I do not foresee any problems.

We have been using Hadoop and Spark.

The installation and configuration are straightforward.

We have a team of three people doing the backend maintenance and application support for this solution.

We did not encounter any issues that we would need support. 

I would recommend this solution to others for small operations. For bigger applications with large amounts of data and a lot of users, I would not recommend it.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.

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. 

This solution is part of the ERP that we have for application. We use it for many purposes, such as POS in-store cash registers for enterprise companies.

SQL Server provides good performance. Most of the SQL solutions can be integrated and this solution is no different, you are able to link other databases. For example, we have Oracle running a Postgres Server and it is linked. It follows the ISO standard when it comes to commands, it works well.

They could improve by adding the SQL format.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately eight years.

The solution is stable, I have not had any issue using it.

The scalability is very good.

We have approximately 500 users using the POS.

I have previously used IBM Informix, PostgresSQL, and Oracle Databases.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately 30 minutes. If you were to add more features the installation could take longer. For example, there are many features such as table partitioning allowing you to do queries faster, transferring data from one table to another, and performing quicker backups.

We did the implementation ourselves. We have a team that does the maintenance for Windows Servers, Linux desktops, and Linux Servers.

There is a license required for servers and for the POS we use the free version. The free version allows you to have tables and a total database size of approximately 10 GB, which is enough for our requirements.

This is an excellent solution when it comes to databases. I would recommend it to others.

I rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case is for SQL Server is data warehousing and business intelligence.

This solution acts as the backbone of most IT services. It is essential for us to use it.

I have found the whole solution with all its features wonderful.

If this solution could provide an automatic indexing feature it would be very useful.

In the next release, there could be better integration with Power BI or other tools.

I have been using this solution for approximately 20 years.

The solution is stable. There has been a few bugs but all solutions have them at one time or another.

There are scalability limitations and this is why we are evaluating cloud alternatives. 

I rate the scalability of SQL Server a four out of five.

We provide support for our clients but if we need support we receive it quickly because we are prime customers.

We are currently evaluating cloud options.

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution to thoroughly investigate if this is the right tool for their use case.

I rate SQL Server an eight 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.