SQL Server Reviews

It's a database that we use for our commercial applications, and our ERP sits on it.

SQL Server is definitely easy to use, and with the volume that we have, it's also stable.  Maintenance is much easier compared to other products. I may not be comfortable with Oracle because I don't have much experience with it. But in this case, SQL Server is much better for me. 

Performance could be better. But I don't know if it's a problem with my application or with my database. Maybe it can have the capability, but I may not be using it to the extent that it could be used, or the configuration is not as per the standard.

I've been using SQL Server for over ten years.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

The initial setup is very easy.

I implemented this solution by myself.

I would recommend this solution to potential users. If they have their own in-house team, they can manage it very easily. Microsoft is always easy to manage. It's a product where no expert is required for its maintenance.

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

It is a typical database solution, and it is working well so far. It is easy to use, and it is also very common and popular, which makes it easy to find a support partner.

It will be very useful to have high-level database monitoring. It should also have built-in business intelligence reporting.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years.

We have around approximately 600 or 700 users of this solution. Currently, everybody is using this solution, and we don't have a plan to increase its usage.

We don't have a direct connection with Microsoft support. We have a support partner who is in contact with the official Microsoft support.

Its initial setup is easy.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I am an IT professional, I write services for my clients. I provide support services for SQL, firewalls, and operating systems. IT infrastructure support in general is what I provide.

What I like most is the management, as it is very easy compared with other products.

Security is an issue. This is an area that needs to be improved.

There is security built-in, but most of the developers don't emphasize the security enough. When they are building the products or databases, they don't focus on the security of the database.

I have been providing services for this solution to my clients for five or six years.

We have had no issues with stability. It's one of the most stable products.

This solution is scalable. It is easy to expand.

In the five or six years that I have been handling SQL Servers, I have not had to contact technical support. 

Their documentation is sufficient for troubleshooting and maintenance activity.

I am also using Sophos.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have our in-house team of more than 10 engineers for maintenance.

Pricing is a bit on the higher side. It could be reduced.

To others who are interested in using this solution, I would say go for it. It's a stable database that is easy to configure and maintain. I would suggest this solution when compared with other databases.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We have found there are many useful features such as the solution is continually being upgraded, ETL capabilities for extracting and transformation, and it is very easy to use.

The solution has been really stable in my experience.

We have approximately 20 to 30 users of the solution in my organization here in Colombia, Mexico.

The initial setup is simple.

The price of the solution could be reduced, it is expensive.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

It can be used for different things such as data warehousing and online transactional processing (OLTP). This is a product that I have never used in production, however.

The most valuable feature is that it is easy to use and you don't have to do a lot of configuration. For example, there is no installation.

When you want to insert data, it is easy to do. For example, if I want to test something then I log into my GitHub account, download what I want, and then upload it to the SQL server.

The integration with other products like SQL Developer is really good. Connecting it to Visual Studio is also quite good.

More things in SQL Server need to be automated. We need to do a lot of things, especially on the cloud, and Oracle has better automation for handling these kinds of tasks. Automation is the key, these days.

I have been using SQL Server for a couple of months.

With respect to scalability, I can say that the cloud version is scalable. I don't have much to say about how an on-premises deployment scales. However, in general, both Oracle and Microsoft products scale really well.

Technical support is responsive and quite good.

I also have experience with Oracle Database. When I compared pricing between the two products, I found that Microsoft was more expensive.

There is no installation. Everything is done by Microsoft and all you have to do is deploy it. The process takes less than five minutes.

I have done the installation many times by myself.

As a cloud-based product, there are no special resources required for maintenance. Once you deploy it, you just want to make sure that the data is displayed or presented in the way that you want it. Most of the technical work is handled by Microsoft.

There is a charge for this product if you are using it in production. For development, there is no cost. The pricing from Microsoft is quite expensive compared to Oracle.

In summary, this is a good product, I plan to continue using it, and I definitely recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for studying data and statistics. We have some services that we are monitoring and keeping records and doing reports, and we use it for that.

The solution is quite stable.

The solution has the capability of scaling.

The performance is good. 

It's very easy to use.

The solution was delivered to us, and we really don't interface with the solution directly. I can't speak to any features that are missing.

The only people that can use it directly are developers. It's not for everyday users.

The pricing in general could be better.

We've used the solution for about five years or so. It's been a while.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. We do not deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale, however, it's dependant on the hardware. It's not limitless.

There are about ten users using the solution at this time.

We do have plans to increase usage in the future.

We don't interface with Microsoft support. We always go to the vendor that performed the integration for us.

We did not implement the solution. We had it delivered to us.

I've done an installation in the past, however, not at this company. It's straightforward. It's simple due to the fact that it's going to be installed on the Microsoft operating system, not like MySQL that's used on a Linux server.

Deployment may take about 15 minutes or so.

We have a technical team of about eight people that can handle maintenance as necessary.

We had an integrator deliver the solution to us, as we are not ourselves developers.

I don't have any details on the licensing in terms of any details or costs. It's not an aspect of the solution I directly deal with.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have any business relationship with the company.

We use the express edition of the solution.

It was delivered as part of a solution. We are not developers. It was a turnkey solution delivered to us by an integrator, and we are doing some maintenance, however, we are not developing the content of the database. It was used as part of our services for maybe five years or more.

The database is on the back end. We are using it with our applications at the front end that we are interfacing with. In terms of the SQL server, we don't go and use it directly. We use it through the application. There's an application that is providing a user interface for us, and we work on that user interface. We don't work on the native interface of the SQL server.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I've heard that Oracle is better.

I'd recommend this solution to other companies.

We primarily use the solution for recording transactions and information related to the reservation of a service. 

The product is very stable.

It offers very good documentation. When there are some little issues, it's always very easy to go into the documentation for troubleshooting purposes. There's just so much documentation on hand and a really great community around the product that is very helpful.

It's a very complete product.

We've found it to basically be pretty problem-free.

The integration with other products has always been quite good.

The security of the product has never given us any issues.

We're quite satisfied with the solution. There aren't any outstanding features we would like to add.

The interface could be updated to make it slightly more user-friendly.

We've been using the solution for more than ten years. It's been a while. It's been more than a decade at this point.

The solution is very stable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's excellent.

We haven't really scaled the solution all that much. At the moment, we have measured the scalability in a horizontal way. When we needed to have more installation and more capacity, we split the database into a different SQL Server instance.

In the future, we'll likely need to consider scalability more. We are also moving in the last two years, also to a different architecture from a monolithic to a more microservice architecture. Maybe the scalability can be more easily handled in the applications that are talking to each other and leaving the database out of the equation.

While end-users are hard to quantify, I can say that likely half a million users have come through our system for transactions.

In the near future, we will continue to use the solution. We might use it for the next four or five years, although it is hard to say.

We've always been able to rely on the fantastic documentation and great community around the product in order to troubleshoot problems. It's very easy to fix issues as they arise due to the public knowledge available to everyone.

We've mostly always used this solution. Last quarter, we moved a little bit to a NoSQL database. We have done a little experiment on Cassandra however, previously, it has always been on SQL Server.

We're considering moving away from the solution right now and trying something new. The owner of the company wants to experiment with other technologies and see what is out there, which is why there is talk of change. However, it's not a reflection on this product, which has been largely quite good.

The initial setup is not overly difficult. It's pretty straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

We have 12 technical people on our team that can handle the implementation.

The last version we used is 2015 if I'm not mistaken. We don't jump immediately to the latest version due to the fact that, usually, we look for stability. We make the move to the next version in case of some integration or limitation. We prefer not to move onto something that might have bugs or glitches that need to be patched. It's more secure for us that way. 

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's doing exactly what we need it to do. We've very happy with it.

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.