SQL Server Reviews

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. 

We use this solution to analyze the profitability of sales.

Within our organization, there are roughly 30 people using the analysis services solution from the Business Intelligence side.

The performance can be great. Tuning and understanding SSAS is not straightforward.

The issue is that Microsoft is not really supporting the Multi Dimensional Analysis Services feature any longer and it's looking very obsolete. We're looking at replacing it.

SSAS-MD is difficult to make changes. It's a very complicated product in general — that's the issue. It is too complicated for most. It's too difficult to change. It's too difficult!

I have been using this product for more than 10 years.

This particular product is quite stable. We've not had any particular problems. We've had problems with Microsoft Excel recently, but Analysis Services has been quite stable.

Scalability-wise, it's quite good. It's not scalable up to the big data type of thing that people are doing now. It's scalable up to a point, but it has been overtaken by newer products.

We try and avoid calling Microsoft support, generally. That's the truth. We've tried getting support for other products like Power BI — support is an issue.

They're changing their products and they're not stable enough. Analysis Services has been okay, but some of their other products, like Excel and Power BI, are not stable.

We're looking at alternative solutions because we think Microsoft's licensing costs have been expensive and multidimensional cubes have been overtaken by other technologies such as in-memory databases and products like Snowflake.

We're looking for a solution that allows us to pay by usage rather than pay by the number of users. We don't want to pay for hardware capacity that we rarely use. I'm looking at several products, including Snowflake, that bill by how much we use the product. I'm not sure if Microsoft is on board with that yet. I was also looking at Qlik — they do a commercial model that is paid by the amount of time. I think paying per usage is a rising trend at the moment.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a rating of nine. It's generally a good product.

If you're interested in using this solution, my advice is to do your research. It's a good product, but there are other products available.

One of the biggest issues that I have with Microsoft is that they change their products and don't continue to support the old product. We've got some things in Microsoft Excel that are no longer supported. They bring out a new model and they drop support for some of the older features.

We are using this solution as a database. The main purpose is as an SQL Server.

Our backend and core systems are using Microsoft SQL Server. We have no complaints from anyone who is using it.

We have nothing that we can compare it with.

It's much more friendly in comparison with Oracle.

We are using the standard features. I don't see any areas that can be simplified with the standard functionalities. We don't use any special extended features.

From my point of view, using SQL Server 2017 and 2019 is very good. I haven't experienced any issues or been in a situation where I was struggling with problems for which I didn't have access to proper documentation or proper functions.

I have been using SQL Server for eight years.

After eight years in our company, we have not had any issues with SQL Server from a stability point of view.

We are a small company. We don't have any issues with this and we are fully virtualized. If we need to, we can extend the amount of CPUs as we want.

Our core system is being used by 50 users, but they are not accessing the SQL Server. We have approximately 10 users in our company who are using the SQL Server.

I have never used technical support.

I am using Avamar and Data Domain. I have been using Data Domain for four or five years. It was used as the data storage for the backup solution in our sister company.

I worked with Oracle in the previous company. Microsoft SQL Server is better.

We have also used Software Center, Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange, and almost everything that is Microsoft-based.

It was installed by an outsourcing company. It is another sister company.

It's cheaper than Oracle.

I am fine with the pricing, but pricing is an area that can always be improved.

We are Microsoft D-level partners. Pricing is not an issue for us, because of the outreach of our mother company.

We are a Microsoft-based company.

I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a relational database system.

The solution offers very high performance.

It is a very reliable solution. We find it to be quite stable.

We've found the product to be very scalable, specifically from MSSQL. 

The product offers various deployment models.

The Message Broker portion of the solution is not very scalable in comparison to the rest of the solution. The problem is, you can exclude that portion.

The Task Scheduler has a lot of shortcomings. This could be improved quite a bit.

The enterprise version of the product should be more cost-effective.

We've been using the solution for the last 15 or so years. It's been a while. We have a lot of experience with it.

The stability of the product is very good. It offers excellent performance. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is extremely scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so without any problems.

The enterprise version of the solution needs to be priced more competitively.

We have a couple of models. We lease through Azure monthly, which is for the Standard version. We have had to purchase the Enterprise version to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars, which is just ridiculous.

On top of that, there aren't really any other knock-on costs.

We have experience with almost every angle of Microsoft ecosystem that you could imagine.

We're a direct customer. We own a MSSQL server. We have it deployed both on-premises and on the cloud, so we use different deployment models. We have distinct instances in the cloud and we have distinct instances in our on-prem.

I would warn other organizations to not use their Message Broker and don't rely on their Task Scheduler. Look elsewhere. Go look at Oversource, Rabbit MQ, Azure Message Broker, or something other than what's built into Microsoft's SQL server. That would be my advice.

Our original architecture messaging infrastructure was based on Microsoft SQL server's Message Broker. It's been a complete disaster. It's a black hole that can't be diagnosed or supported in terms of troubleshooting from Microsoft when it doesn't work. When it doesn't work, it just doesn't work and no one can answer why. That is very bad. The intended use of it was for enterprise messaging. However, that is not a use case for MSSQL Message Broker, period. We're in the process of moving in a couple of directions. We're going to move to Azure Service Bus as an interim solution, as our current technical capabilities are very Microsoft-centric. Then, the next step will be to move to other more enterprise-class messaging and queuing subsystems like RabbitMQ.

The SQL server as an engine probably deserves a very high nine out of ten. It's a very, very efficient relational database management system. And it is very scalable.

We are using SQL server for both transactional and analytical purposes, and for storing the data.

We are familiar with Microsoft products and bringing another Microsoft product was a very easy transition.

The most valuable features are ease of use and the integration with Single Sign On (SSO), as well as with other Microsoft products.

The performance needs some improvement and it needs more features integrated into it.

Technical support could be better. 

Scalability could be less costly.

One of the conflicts with Microsoft is if you have an enterprise relationship, you have to deal with a third-party offering Microsoft solutions.

In the 2016 version, they don't have support for Python. It may be included with the 2019 version but if they don't, I would like to see support for Python implemented.

The company has been using this solution for approximately 20 years. I was in contracting and now have been using it for approximately five years.

SQL Server is pretty stable.

There is a concern with the scalability because it's an on-premise technology. 

Scaling always comes with more costs and also the licensing cost increase, which makes it complex, and more difficult.

We have backend developers, data engineers, data scientists, and analysts using this solution.

Most of the time, technical support is not straightforward and it goes to a third party.

I wouldn't say that it is great, but okay.

Previously, we had not used any other solutions. We have been a Microsoft shop from the beginning.

The initial setup was not easy but not complex. Rather, it was somewhere in between.

We did not use an integrator or reseller to deploy this solution.

Pricing is reasonable for small organizations, but the scaling increases the price.

For larger organizations that would be using enterprise solutions, it contains some hidden costs.

It's suited for small organizations, but if someone from a larger organization is looking for this, they might have some problems implementing enterprise-wide solutions. This is because of the integrations, as there would be hidden costs to it.

The best parts of this solution are the costs and that it is easy to use, but the cons would be with implementing an enterprise-wide solution. There are many hidden factors, such as costs. Also, you have to put more effort into integrating with other solutions across the enterprise.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

All our databases are using Microsoft SQL. It supports our application, such as HR and finance.

SQL Server could improve by being more user-friendly, it is still geared towards specialists. Additionally, the monitoring system is difficult to use, not everyone can use it well. The configuration should be able to be done through the GUI.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

SQL Server is highly stable.

SQL Server is very scalable because we use it across a couple of different types of applications, such as micro-infrastructure setup and server farm.

The solution is suitable for any environment, such as small, medium, and large enterprises. 

SQL Server support system is well-established. It's a Microsoft solution therefore you receive support very easily. It is the number one selling point of SQL Server. I have been highly satisfied with the support.

SQL Server's initial setup is simple. However, you must be a specialist to do it. That's the unfriendliness that I see about the solution. It has to be done by an engineer and not any engineer can do it, you have to be a specific Microsoft engineer.

My advice to others would be to create a standard for SQL Server to allow a high level of security. What we did is, we adopted CIS, which is the Center for Information Security, hardening standards and benchmarks to keep it secure. SQL Server out of the box comes with a lot of unnecessary services that can make you very vulnerable to any site attack.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I am an integrator of this solution and my customers use this for ETL and reporting.

This solution is user-friendly and easy to understand.

The stability of the solution should be improved in the next release. Sometimes it is great, sometimes it is troublesome. I would also like data conversion and the code pages to be a bit more straightforward.

I have been working with SQL Server for the past fifteen years.

Stability can be shaky.

This is a scalable solution.

I use to work with Informatica via the Oracle package and switched to SQL because it is cheaper and a bit better than the others.

This solution is pretty easy to deploy.

SQL Server has the best licensing price.

There is a lot to learn about this solution when first using it, as with any other tool.

I would rate this solution 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.