SQL Server Reviews

We have been using SQL Server for more than 10 or 15 years. 

Microsoft support is an issue unto itself. We mainly benefit from common support, such as a forum or Microsoft support, of which I don't have that much experience.

As with Oracle Database, the solution has a reliable database. I do not see much difference between the two when it comes to usage and the program decision to use one solution over another varies with the appropriateness of a given product, some utilizing Oracle, others Scale.

I am an SQL partner. 

As with Oracle, SQL Server is deployed on private cloud. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

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.

We only use it as a logging solution. We use it as logging for processing our database. It holds records for some systems and so on. That's it.

The solution is stable.

The product is scalable.

The solution is configurable. 

The IT and digital transformation department are a bit fresh in this company that I am working for. They have a lot of plans, a lot of visions. I don't know how are they are going to do the infrastructure. I don't know their vision.

So far, the solution fits the scope of our company. We aren't missing any features. 

The integration could be better. They are not open-source, so the integration with other platforms is not that easy.

The company has been using them for a long time. I newly joined the company two months ago, so I don't know when exactly they start using it.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

You can scale the product. You can increase and decrease the storage as needed. It's very easy.

The amount of users on the solution is anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 users. 

While I've never been in touch with technical support, the administration team has. They've contacted the team in Egypt. I haven't heard of any negative experiences.

I've also worked with Oracle in the past. At this company, since it is an older server, it may have been in service longer. We were using the two databases for two different functions.

I wasn't a part of the installation process, however, it's my understanding that the company handled the installation themselves. 

The administration team has three or four team members. They can handle maintenance tasks and rotate tasks between themselves.

My understanding is that the company handled the installation internally. However, I was only recently hired. 

Any kind of information related to costs or licensing is beyond my scope. I don't deal with that aspect of the solution. I do not know if licensing is paid monthly or yearly.

We are customers and end-users.

Our architecture is divided. There are parts on-premise and parts on Azure cloud. I don't know exactly where the SQL Server sits. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I might recommend it to other organizations. That said, it depends on the solution they need. I've worked on Oracle, I have worked on my Microsoft SQL servers. What would be best depends on the solution they need. However, Microsoft SQL servers are a very trusted product. I would recommend it if someone was asking about it.

We primarily use the solution for data storage. We use it for its data warehouse, BI services, and AI.

If you compare the SQL Server with the block storage it's stable and it's working. 

The product has been on the market for over 25 or 30 years. It's an extremely mature solution.

The solution is pretty scalable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, depending on your requirements.

The solution is very expensive. 

Technical support could be faster.

I've been using the solution for many years. It's been a while. It's likely been over ten years or so - a decade or more.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with ease.

Three people are using the solution in our organization.

We've used technical support in the past. However, it's not a very fast support system. For the new Office 365, it's better. This solution still needs to work on support.

For a specific task, we are using this solution. However, for some other tasks, we're using MongoDB, MariaDB, Oracle, or something else. It depends on the task and the solution and the requirements.

The installation is not overly complex or difficult for the most part. The initial setup's level of straightforwardness, however, depends. If you only need an SQL Server, it's easy. If you need a cluster, it's more difficult. If you need a great cluster all over the world, it's more difficult.

I handled the installation myself. I did not need the help of an integrator or consultant.

The solution is expensive. The pricing is different and not really standardized. If you're using it on Azure you pay on your workloads. If you have a separate dedicated instance, you pay for the course. It's different, according to the situation, however, in either case, it's expensive.

We are customers and end-users.

We are using the 2014 and 2019 versions of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations and users. However, if it will work for a company, or if it will work for them in an ideal manner depends on the requirements you have to fulfill as an organization. For example, race cars may be good cars, and great products, however, it's for a specific task. For other tasks, it may not be useful.

I general, I'm quite satisfied with the solution and it does what I need it to do. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

We use this solution for data warehousing and products to the platforms developed by the company. 

We like everything. We use all of the features that SQL offers. 

We like business integration, database, and analysis.

I would like to see more integration with other platforms.

I have used this solution for more than ten years

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable product.

It's a scalable solution and we have 1,000 users in our organization.

We are stabilizing, so we are not going to increase our usage with SQL.

Technical support is okay. We don't have any issues with them.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It took a couple of hours to install, no more than that.

We completed the implementation ourselves.

We have a team of 34 admins and engineers to deploy and maintain this solution.

We purchased our license and the pricing is fine for us. 

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

We use SQL Server for our internal applications.

Working with SQL Server, it is quite convenient to use the SSMS tools to write a profile. I also like the profiling tools.

I like that the new version has a memory-optimized table to improve the performance.

We had some difficulty doing the performance tuning when we migrated from the 2008 version to the 2016 version. We experienced a drop in the performance. We could not understand or figure out what caused the drop in performance. We did not change any settings to cause this effect. We tried to keep the same settings.

We feel that when running the 2008 version, it was much quicker in terms of performance. 

That is an area of SQL Server that can be improved. Moving to a new version, you shouldn't have to change the configuration.

We have not been able to utilize it fully because it is not straightforward.

I would like to see the performance improved. Migrating should be easier and the scalability needs improvement.

I have been using this solution for many years. 

We are using version 2016.

It's a stable product.

In terms of scalability, it has some room for improvement.

We have 20 people in our organization who are using this solution.

We don't usually get support from Microsoft. We get it from our software vendors or we try to do it ourselves.

We are somewhat satisfied with the support that we have received from the vendor, but not fully because of the issue we faced when we moved to a newer version. But in other areas, it's okay.

We have used SQL Server from the beginning.

The initial setup was moderate. It was not easy but it was not difficult.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for non-management processes.

The product is very good at centralizing information.

The solution has very good features related to timezones.

The product is quite stable.

If you need to, you can scale the solution very easily.

The solution has legacy issues when it comes to compatibility. If you have older technology, you may run into compatibility problems with SQL.

The solution is rather expensive.

I've been using the solution for over a decade. It's been a long time. At this point, it's been about 12 years or so.

The stability of the solution is excellent. We don't run into any issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's fairly reliable.

The solution scales well. if a company needs to expand its SQL server, it's not a problem to do so.

We do plan to continue to use it going forward. I'm unsure as to if we have plans to scale it, however.

I don't have too much information on technical support, however, it's my understanding that if you need it, it is available.

We did not previously use a different solution. We've only ever really used SQL.

The initial setup isn't too complex. It's pretty straightforward, especially if you are setting up the cloud. It's very easy to provision. It requires fairly typical knowledge. If you are familiar with Windows software, you'll find that there isn't much of a challenge to the setup. I'd say it's not overly technical.

Deployment is fast. You can have it up and running in an hour or sometimes less.

You need about two people to handle the deployment of the solution.

I handled the implementation myself. It's pretty easy, and not too technical, and therefore I didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

You do need to pay for licensing in order to use the solution. It is a little bit expensive, however, it's not the most expensive option on the market. It's cheaper than the competition, however, as I mentioned, it's still pretty pricey.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the client.

We're using the latest version of the solution currently.

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I'd recommend this product to other organizations.

Overall, we've had a positive experience with the solution. I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for many tasks. We use it as a data warehouse. However, we also use it for workflows and processing jobs.

The analytics are pretty good.

As a data warehouse and storage solution, it's quite good.

It's easy to put the data back onto the SQL Server or Oracle. 

The solution is pretty fast. We find it to be responsive.

There are a lot of services, such as the SSISS, SIS, and SSI's that work quite well.

The solution could use better governance on the management side, especially around data governance.

The product could do better at allowing for integrations. 

I've been working with the solution for many years. It's likely ten to 15 years at this point. It's well over a decade, so I have some long-term experience with the product overall.

The scalability for the solution is good, at least where it concerns the cloud. Using the cloud makes everything very easy to scale. On-remises, if you run out of dick space, it's a bit difficult.

We've been in touch with technical support in the past. We manage the data center ourselves, however, if we run into issues we know we can contact them for assistance. I'd say we are quite satisfied with the level of support we get.

I can't recall how the initial setup was. It was a while ago. We've had the solution for a very long time.

We're just customers and end-users.

I don't know if I would recommend the solution per se. There are other options out there. Something that is a NoSQL database. Something like Snowflake, for example, might be a very good option for data warehousing. They are more adept at handling different types of data.

You shouldn't have to create tables or systems, you should just be able to query files.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. However, for the current scenarios we have, there are other options that may be more suitable. It's not the only product available on the market, and the competition is quite good.