SQL Server Reviews

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.

On-premises

My primary use case is for data mining and processing data from plants. It's normally just for databases for the systems.

The availability is the most valuable feature. It has high availability. It also has good performance. 

In terms of improvement, it could use more integration with other products.

I have been using this solution for around ten years. 

The stability is good. We don't have any issues with stability or scalability. 

We have contacted support when we had Windows issues. They are okay, not the best but not the worst. They know what they're doing but they take a little too long. The response time isn't so good. 

The initial setup is mostly straightforward. The time it takes to deploy depends on the circumstances. It takes around three or four hours. 

I would recommend this solution. It's a good product. I am satisfied with it. It's familiar, we've been using SQL for a while. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement. 

Private Cloud

Very pleasing and satisfying experience.

• Used to create queries
• Implemented store procedures
• DBA can also use this effectively.

• Used to create queries
• Implemented store procedures
• DBA can also use this effectively. 
• Reduces other manual work.

• Creating and executing SQL queries, transactions, ACID properties
• Creating and implementing stored procedures.

Every good tool has its own limitations. 

• First of all its cost. It is very high. 
• We need a good amount of RAM to properly use this. 
• Sometimes, query sticks in between. 

But our organization provides great RAM, so we don't have any issue with its speed.

More than five years.

No.

It's good.

No.

Go for it. Thumbs up.

The customer's MES system  use it.  The database system desgin as always on architecture.

Like Data guard in Oracle , always on contain double data and sync data by using transactions store in transaction log

It is easy to establish, and the license price is lower than that of Oracle.  

Otherwise, our customer could can replace primary databases from Oracle into MSSQL AG

Base on  windows cluster,  the always on no needs complicated config process.

Just click and click following  GUI interface.

table partition options,  that is very useful to separate unnecessary cost. 

For legacy data,  we can do partition swith out and store into flat files or old tables.

When it necessary, we can switch in back.

Horizontal partitioning.  

In that case,  cold , warm and hot data can be distributed into different database not only table partition located on different FGs .

Three to five years.

Sometimes , when windows server suddently failed, the database still can be turn on when DB server started.

When do "sp_rename" or "table rebuild" , the cluster index or non-cluster index no needs to rebuild at same time

Customer always comes out many questions

I have no choice. our customer choose MS SQL 

 initial setup straightforward

ordinary level

database administrator

Migration local database into cloud

No, I  have to accepted it 

subpartition is necessary

It allows me to obtain access to data that I would not otherwise obtain access to from different programs. It has helped pull statistics and data, then put it into a report form to do some Power BI on it. This really helps people above me to view what we are doing, how we are doing it, and how to improve it.

Overall, it just makes your job simpler.

• Ease of installation.
• Ease of creating your databases.
• Ease of changing what your databases look like when you need to.
• Creating tables is simple.
• They have lots of different options that you can use for the fields within the tables. 

It is a simple query language. It is consistent across all versions. If you start with an older version, move to the newer version. The same code will still work.

It can go easily on a virtual machine and be accommodated by a virtual machine easily. That is a plus, as not all databases can handle that. It also will do clustering, so you can have two database servers looking at the same data simultaneously. 

You can always access the data. You could have an offsite and an onsite, and if the onsite goes down, the offsite picks it up. I like that flexibility to provide continuing operations.

Right now, the tool you use to query the system updates every month. It pesters you to update the Client every month when there is nothing new that you really need to add, but it is constantly pestering you. I do not care for it.

I have no problems with stability at all, even when they are clustered.

Scalability depends on the version. I have to know ahead of time what version I need, but that is typical of all database software. However, as long as I build it correctly, it works great.

I have not had support for the SQL Server product. 

This is Microsoft, so you just buy a ticket and they will just work with you until it is fixed. However, I have not had any issues where I needed to contact them.

We previously used MySQL, because it is a free product. It was just hard to operate, do backups, and make automated. Also, it was not scalable.

Initial setup is real simple. Just install it. Though, I recommend for new users to at least look online for training or a manual.

It has the easiest licensing.

We are a Microsoft shop, so we use Active Directory. That integrates well with this product, but we did look at Oracle. We also looked at IBM. This was the best price point for us for what we were getting.

Activity Monitor and Dynamic Management Views

After reviewing a client's Microsft SQL environment, I have been able to setup specifics alerts and jobs in SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) to definitely show them where they are experiencing network latency, disk latency, memory pressure, etc., etc.  I have done this type of performance review for over 20 clients in the last 5 years

When reviewing SQL processes it would be great if all of the local processes on the SQL server were marshaled to a remote SSMS client.

I have been using Microsoft SQL Server since 6.0

WMI configuration

Setting up Microsoft SQL server performance alerts and jobs on a single server or in a Cluster is very straightforward. I typically start off looking at the following:

• Batch Request/Sec
• Buffer cache hit ratio < 96%
  
• CPU Utilization  > 80 % sustained
  
• Compilation/Sec
• Re-compilation/Sec
• Page Life Expectancy (PLE)
• User Connections
• Lock Waits / Sec: _Total
• Process Lock/Block By

My objectives are to provide a baseline to determine database growth pattern to ensure capacity planning, stability, bottlenecks, etc., etc.

We primarily use the solution to store databases. 

Since MongoDB, we have come up and there are lots of tools that do enhance the database management system or keep an eye on our data. People can easily access it. 

The solution is stable. It's reliable. 

The initial setup is simple. 

MongoDB is a bit better. A traditional database system, like the SQL Server, is failing to catch up.

You need an experienced person to use that piece of technology so that you can store everything in a logical manner. We'd like it to be easier to store in a logical manner.

The scalability could be better. 

We've been using this solution since 2012. It's been a while at this point. 

It's not scalable. It hinders your performance as it's slow in nature and you need experienced people to work on it. That is why it's not very scalable.

We currently have ten to 15 users on the solution. 

At this time, we have no plans to increase usage. We are focusing more on MongoDB.

We don't have any experience with Microsoft technical support. Therefore, I wouldn't be able to rate how responsive or helpful they are.

We did not previously use a different solution. We are currently moving towards MongoDB, however.

The installation is easy, especially since the new version has come up. Now, with the latest versions, installation is easy.

I cannot remember the time it took to complete the installation.

Earlier, we had to bring in a technical team, however, our own technical team is quite experienced now. They can now do it themselves.

We pay a yearly subscription fee. 

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. We're using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. If there are people who can't afford MongoDB or if an organization doesn't want to migrate to MongoDB, it's important to keep in mind the users would have to learn the fundamentals of the SQL server first. Knowledge of it is a necessity.

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

On-premises