SQL Server Reviews

The solution can be used for a host of applications.

The maintenance and tasks should be improved so as to reduce database files.

The complexity of the database should also be reduced, so that its size can be diminished. 

I have been using SQL Server for around ten years. 

The solution from the 2008 version is stable. I like the defined database and the ease with which it can be used and that enquiries can be made. 

I believe the solution to be scalable and plan to increase our usage. 

Installation is relatively easy, although I do not recall how long it took. 

We made use of an integrator.

There is not much technical team required for the deployment and maintenance. It consists solely of engineers.

The licensing is on an annual basis. 

Prior to going with SQL Server I utilized the Oracle Database.

There are around 15 people making use of the solution in our organization. Every computer processing unit has its own license. 

I would recommend the solution to other users. 

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten. 

Currently, I'm moving to another set of projects. One is for a small company that supports a client and is building on a different surface on the SQL server. The cloud that is used is essentially Amazon AWS.

SQL SSIS is the most useful aspect of the solution.

We find the product to be relatively stable.

The solution seems to be pretty flexible.

Due to the fact that I'm dealing with the product more as a data analyst, the SQL Server management studio is really relatively primitive compared to other more advanced tools. There are other tools on the market that are much more advanced. It would be better if they managed to give us a bit more of a user-friendly product with just a bit more meat on the bone. It's a bit basic.

There are a number of features that are lacking. Just recently I had to do something and it's not available on the SQL Server. However, it's available on another solution that's actually a much cheaper product. 

Some areas need improvement. For example, how you deal with the manipulation of data is probably not the best.

While I haven't constantly used the product all of the time, overall, I've used it for over 10 years at this point. I have quite a few years of experience with it.

The solution is quite stable. It doesn't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

In general, the solution is scalable. Microsoft, compared to the others, tends to focus more on the programming ability of the solution rather than the user experience. Rather than making it more user-friendly, they tend to make it more program-friendly.

We have about 70 users on the solution currently.

It's my understanding that the client is planning to scale up to be able to take on more customers in the near future. They may therefore increase usage.

Mostly, I personally am on the analytics and new project development side of things in our organization. Therefore, I typically don't deal with technical support. I can't speak to how supportive, knowledgeable, or responsive they are. 

I typically use SQL wherever I go, however, I don't necessarily use Microsoft all the time. I also occasionally use a solution called Teradata.

I was not involved in the installation of the solution. I'm more on the side of creating metadata. Therefore, it would be difficult for me to comment on if the solution was easy or difficult to implement or how our team deployed it. I don't have any exact details on that front.

While there are costs involved in using the product, I'm not a part of the billing or payments team. I can't speak to how much the solution costs or how much our organization pays. I do not know if it's monthly or yearly and how long our contract is for, if we have one.

I'm using the 2016 or 2017 version of the solution.

There are many SQL options. I'd only recommend this one if it made sense to the individual company and their requirements.

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

We use on-premises, standalone deployment of SQL Server for our own CRM database. There are around seven to eight users in our company. 

SQL Server suffices our main requirement of a small database, and it is also very cost-effective.

The features that we have found the most valuable are reliability, availability perspective, and current scalability. 

The scalability and the high availability feature can be expanded or improved. Currently, there is a limitation on scalability. 

A feature similar to the Oracle Diagnostic feature can be included to provide a better user experience. 

We have been using SQL Server for around 10 years. 

Stability and scalability are both good. It suffices for our current requirements, but if we want to scale up in the future, it has limitations.

We sometimes contacted Microsoft technical support, and we also have in-house Microsoft support. We are happy with the support.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

Our in-house team handled the deployment. 

SQL Server is a cost-effective solution for a small database. 

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. 

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. 

Not a ten because it has some limitations. When considering overall scalability, reliability, features, if you look at Oracle, it's still ahead of SQL Server.

Probably the most useful feature of SQL Server is the ability to write and execute SQL on the fly.

Even though there are some very useful features on Oracle, MySQL, and other platforms, the SQL Server by far has the most robust capabilities of any database platform.

In my experience with numerous coding languages and platforms, the SQL Server has the only programming language that allows the user to create, compile, and execute code in its own language.

To clarify, Java, .NET, PL/SQL and all other programming languages can dynamically create code, but not their own. In other words, Java can dynamically create SQL and execute it, but it cannot create Java and compile/execute.

Other great features are:

• Passing tables as parameters
• Table valued functions
• Horizontal table partitioning
• Very granular disk partitioning

The most recent example is a data warehouse I've created for a client that enables us to use a "no-SQL" construct. This is only possible due to the dynamic SQL capability.

Our client collects data from dozens of sources with little to no commonality between them. With other platforms, this would require a table for each data source. However, because of the dynamic SQL, we have three tables that will accommodate ANY data source and it will never require us to change the data warehouse schema.

As a result, maintenance is virtually zero.

The only real improvement I've been looking for is finally being addressed by Microsoft.

Since SQL Server only ran on Windows, it was not competitive with other platforms which could run on Linux. This has recently been realized with the release of SQL Server for Linux. I currently have the pre-release version and I'm very impressed with what they have so far.

I have been using SQL Server for 17 years.

We did not encounter any issues with stability. None at all.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability. I have been able to create databases with billions of records with no degradation in performance. The partitioning has been a critical feature in enabling scalability.

In my experience with their support, I would rate it as outstanding. Their techs are professional and extremely helpful.

I typically use whatever database platform my client uses. However, whenever I am provided with the option to choose, I will always go with SQL Server.

In older versions, the setup was rather onerous. However, in the latest several releases, it has been extremely simple to install and set up.

Do the research and get the correct licensing model for your given purpose. A lot of people gravitate toward the Open Source databases because they don't have an upfront cost.

I find that what you don't pay upfront is what you have to invest in development and maintenance time on implementation. On far too many occasions, I have spent weeks writing code for features that SQL Server already has built in.

Either pay for the licensing cost or pay multiple times that for the labor involved in creating features, from scratch, that are native to products like SQL Server and Oracle.

I have a good deal of knowledge on SQL Server, and Oracle, MySQL. I have some familiarity with DB2 and PostgreSQL. The database platform chosen will ultimately depend on the needs of the client.

Look very closely at the built-in features. For those features that you may need, estimate what it would take to replicate that same functionality on the "free" products.

The comparison is not on the licensing cost. It's on the features and the license cost versus the labor cost.

We use the product as a database for the applications. 

The tool helps us by being available always. 

We don't encounter any issues with the solution. 

The tool is expensive.

I have been using the product for the last ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

The tool is scalable. 

The tool is easy to install. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

I would rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten. It is not extremely cheap but also it's not the most expensive product. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. 

Performance-wise, SQL cannot handle large amounts of data. In the next release, I would like them to commission SQL Server on Linux, as has been announced in the past but has not yet happened.

I've been using SQL Server for thirteen to fourteen years.

SQL is a highly unstable server - there are patch updates on the Windows server every week, which is why we only use it for non-critical systems. 

The initial setup was very easy - much, much easier than Oracle - and took about a day to complete. Microsoft is less demanding because everything is GUI, unlike Oracle, where you need to use command lines.

This is a very cheap product.

SQL's performance is good enough if you have a low amount of data. For those looking into implementing SQL Server, I would advise first analyzing your requirements and whether your system is critical or non-critical. If it is non-critical, go for SQL as it will save you in terms of cost, but if it is critical, avoid SQL as it will bring you down in one day. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

This is the main database for our financial system. I'm the IT manager and we are customers of SQL server. 

We've been using this solution for many years.

We're satisfied with the stability.

We have around 100 users. The database isn't used directly, so users are not even aware that there is a SQL Server underneath. 

There are some local companies that have direct relations with Microsoft. We use them regularly when we need some support.

I don't recall, it's been many years since we implemented this product. 

We pay a license fee, it could always be cheaper.

I recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

We use the solution on FastAutomate, our core product, to store the aggregated data from different nodes. It resides on the server that's handling the agents. We also use it for different organizations for development. Therefore, we use it for development mainly.

Overall, we've been satisfied with the capabilities of the product.

The solution is stable. It works without issue - to the point you rarely need any technical support at all.

The scalability is very good.

It's got an easy initial setup.

The remote access aspect needs to be improved in terms of security. Right now, it's a little bit hard. 

Also, they need to work on the user interface, as it's a little bit old. They need to improve it a little bit. 

The pricing could be lowered a bit.

We've used the solution for a while. 

Its stability has been good. The solution performs well and is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so. 

Techni al support is good. That said, it's hard to judge as you don't need support on SQL Server. It's working without trouble or issues. Therefore, it's rare to seek support for SQL Server. You rarely have to deal with them.

I've also used SQL Azure.

The recommendation is based on the use case. It depends on what use case the customer will need. If they don't have the capacity to manage their own Server, I would recommend Azure, as it's managed. Therefore, you don't have to worry about the management and administration.

The main difference between the two is, in some data types it is not available on SQL Azure while it's available on SQL Server or vice versa. There's a version of SQL Server with a little bit of limited functionality. That said, the difference is not huge. You can go back and forth between them if you want.

The initial setup is very easy. It's even easier than before, in fact. A company shouldn't have any problems with the implementation. 

The price could be less.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. If the price was a bit less or the remote access was better, I would rate it tighter.

In general, I've been happy with the product.