SQL Server Reviews

This client, specifically, is using it for Dynamics NAV. I don't know what they're calling it today. Microsoft changes the names all the time, 365 NAV Dynamics. This is ridiculous. We're using it for that, and we have more of a niche CRM database called Tour de Force. It's owned by a company called White Cup. They own a bunch of companies, and it sits on Microsoft SQL, as well.

One of the things I most like about SQL Server is the log shipping piece.

I have another client who uses GP, and they use Power BI to take the data out of the back end. I'm doing an IT assessment there, so I'm not really involved in that specifically, other than the fact this person has too many rights.

I have an auditing background, and I spent 25 years doing IT auditing as well. I understand I'm not a programmer, but I've been involved with enough of them. The log shipping really is one of the greatest features. It is not the only database you can do it in, but that was one of the better features of it because I am a backup nut. We use Veeam Backup and Replication to a local mass storage, but then we fully replicate everything in Veeam to another site with the exact same server set up at our other location. But I wasn't satisfied with that from a disaster recovery point of view. My IT company was, but I was not. I said, "I want to do SQL log shipping. I want to do an SQL backup and SQL log shipping and move it to Azure in the cloud," which is what we do every day. We have an hour by hour backup, in addition to our multiple nightly backups and our replication to our other site, and we've had to use it and it worked. This is a great feature.

Somebody who knows it would easily say, "No problem," because we set up our log shipping in about three hours. We sometimes have challenges with it in terms of timing, of getting it out, backing it up, and sending it to the cloud. There are always the glitches, but I get a daily report on what's going on. Around 30 backup jobs are running at all times, because it is a big company. It's a 200 person company.

In the next releases, I would only like more enhanced backups and more restore points. Data backup and cyber protection are the number one things everybody should be thinking about now. They may not be, but they should be. We're going to go to the Azure environment because that really is a duplicate of the on-premise environment, just somewhere else.

I would say that I have been directly involved in the ERP world for as long as I can remember, but SQL really didn't appear on my radar until the mid-90s. I know that early GP was out there. I believe it was on an earlier version of SQL. I use it heavily now because I'm the CIO. I'm a consultant, but I'm a CIO of a client for almost nine years, where we have two major databases sitting on SQL.

So I have always been involved in a Microsoft environment.

We are always deploying the latest version. I have multiple clients with SQL and Oracle. But my big client is always up to date.

Whether it is deployed on the cloud or on premises depends on the client. My big client is on-premise and we have a two year plan to move to the cloud.

In terms of scalability, I haven't seen any problems with it. We have 120 users. Every once in a while we get a record lock in our data. It's very rare though. Once every six months somebody hits the same record and same night. It's very rare. You go out for a minute, come back in, and it's over.

I don't have any Fortune 5,000, Fortune 2000, or Fortune 1000 companies. According to the governmental definition, they're small, they're SMB, but my big client is 200 million. To me, that's a lot of money-

But in the eyes of the government, they're still a medium company. I have clients with 1,000 people, but they're only a $50 million company. Those are not for profits. They're paying people 10 bucks an hour. It's very hard to categorize that if you're looking at it from a business perspective versus a technical perspective. I have a client with 1,000 people with 82 sites. So that's a technical challenge, but they don't have the same kind of money as the other people do.

It's a different way to categorize it.

Calling Microsoft is like calling Verizon. I wouldn't do that. I have a middleman that I work with. It's easier because they have more clout than do. I know that.

This client, the big client I've been talking about, had some ancient DOS system from the 70s when I got there in 2012. They had no data dictionary note. I think it was running on an early version of Unix on a Compaq machine. When I got there, it was 15 years old. The thing was still running until six months ago. You can't believe it. This thing wouldn't die. I tried to make it die multiple times, but we converted from that system onto Dynamics NAV.

It's a two year undertaking. The SQL was stable all the time, never had a problem with it.

In terms of the initial setup, you probably need to know what you're doing. I haven't seen any real laypeople get into the tables. I know it's possible to learn. Things like Power BI have made it easier, but if you don't know what the tables are you have to be a very methodical person to be able to do that stuff. We use a company called ArcherPoint for dynamics. They're one of the largest dynamics dealers in the country, and they have their stuff together. This woman I use there knows her stuff. She knows SQL very well, and my IT company also has a senior guy who they often talk to, and it always seems pretty straightforward, whatever they do. It's never a big install.

Usually a few hours and it's over.

This client has money, so I never hear any complaints. It seems reasonable to me. I think the biggest problem that Microsoft had back in the early 2000s was that the pricing of SQL was a nightmare. You could call five Microsoft people at Microsoft, and you'd get five different prices. Microsoft has a problem. Well, they have lots of problems. They characterize themselves as perfect.

From 40 years ago, I already knew well in advance of the clients that there is a security hole. I'm looking at Business Central, and somebody who has a global super admin of the tenant can get into the client's accounting system if they have full rights to their 365 email system. That's a big security gap. Their IT company shouldn't be in their financial system. Why would that be? I came up with the idea after talking to five different Microsoft people to just buy another tenant that they don't have access to and they said, "Oh, that works."

SQL Server is a good mainstream application that has been around for quite some time, and I like when things are around for a while. I don't like to be the first kid on the block. I remember when Power BI first came out. I waited a year and a half to use it.

The big thing for NAV was to get reports. We still use it, but we mostly abandoned it. It's really not working as well as I would've liked. And that reads SQL tables. While that was great, you had to trust the person who wrote it, that it would include all the data you needed. There's a big trust. We often found lots of problems with it, so we decided to just program all these reports inside the application. That worked really well. The thing I don't like is, I know a lot of people don't know about the backend security of SQL. They think others cannot get into their system and I tell them they can, they have the SA password. People are shocked. That's a hole that they should plug.

They should plug that and make that more apparent to people. When I did auditing, most clients had SQL based applications, and we'd always say, "Who's got the SA password," and they'd say, "What are you talking about?" Then we would tell them, and there is all this SQL injection stuff that used to happen. I haven't heard of any hacking through the back end in a while. Because you're talking about cybersecurity being so important now, people can hack in and get into the back end, although 99% of cyber is ransomware through email.

The risk is probably still low, but I try to close up all the gaps if I can. Clients don't know about this stuff. They don't even know enough to ask. I find a lot of IT people don't even think about stuff like that.

I'll ask a client if they back up their data and how often. If they talk to their IT guy? If they say, "Once a night," I ask, "Okay, what if it was the middle of the day and you go down? You lose all your data." I ask if they have ever heard of SQL log shipping. They start stuttering because they don't know how to set it up.

It would be great if Microsoft was more up-front about how to do that stuff. It's a great feature.

On a scale of one to ten, I would probably give SQL Server a nine. I don't give anybody a perfect score, certainly not in the technology world. Oracle is out there. NetSuite is just giving it away. You have a lot of other applications not running on SQL, like Intacct, who are creating proprietary, non-Microsoft things to come against what Microsoft is offering like interoperability with different applications. They are really pushing a different environment. I think Microsoft is going to win, but Sage is not a small company.

We have all these big titans fighting each other.

We do backups or restore or query tables to create the views, create some triggers to send the attachment report files, and to report on data.

It makes managing the database easy. Backups are very quick.

Sometimes we experience issues with its stability.

I have experience with SQL Server for 3-4 years. 

Sometimes we experience issues with its stability.

Five thousand users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is easy. Fifteen twenty minutes required for deployment. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The product enables us to grant access to users. The product is easy to use.

The pricing could be better.

I have been using the solution for about four years.

We did not have any issues with stability. The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. Four other users have access to the server. We are not planning to increase the usage.

The setup is straightforward. The deployment does not take very long.

We did not use an integrator for the deployment. Our in-house team has been able to deploy the tool well.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I recommend the solution to others. The solution is straightforward to work with. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to extract data. We have a partnership with Microsoft and I'm a solutions architect. 

This is a user-friendly solution. It's great that I can extract the data from the SQL server and store it in my local data source for BI purposes.

I think that performance could be improved and SQL presents some challenges for us.

The stability is good. 

We haven't faced any scalability issues. We have over 200 users. 

I interact with multiple data sources, multiple customers and their ERPs. It can be Oracle, SAP or MongoDB among other solutions. MongoDB, for example, is a little more complex than the SQL Server and we often have more of a challenge establishing a connection with MongoDB.

The initial setup is not a problem. 

This solution is moderately expensive. 

I can definitely recommend this solution to smaller and midsize organizations. I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We do data warehousing on it. We have databases on it. A lot of our applications use it for transactions and data.

We're using version 2019. We're trying to migrate to 2021 because 2023 is not yet that stable.

It works fine in terms of performance and stability.

I would like Microsoft to evolve SQL Server because stateful databases dying are in a way. We would like to find out if it can absorb Hadoop and other similar things. They should make it useful for data mining. Data is evolving forever, and how we store it is also changing constantly. So, SQL Server also needs to change.

I have been using this solution for two decades.

It works fine. There are no issues.

It is scalable. There are a lot of users. There are over 300 applications using this solution. Each application has its own users. In the technical team, there are about 13 people working with it.

I logged a ticket recently when I had an issue with the data manager. Their support wasn't that bad. I would rate them an eight out of 10.

I've used different solutions. There are times when I use Db2, and there are times when I use Oracle Database. Oracle beats SQL Server when it comes to procedures and process optimization.

The initial setup is easy. It takes 30 minutes at the most. What limits you is just your infrastructure in terms of:

• Do you have enough room on those servers to process that stuff?
• Do you have enough RAM resources?
• Do you have enough storage?
  

I can do it by myself.

It is annual.

I would recommend it to other users. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We have a large amount of information and data. We are using a lot of business models for our menu mix.

Because we are using the solution from an analytics perspective, the performance is good. We have a large amount of information in our dashboard. The data navigation could be improved.

We are using the net for our environment. We're using the ADF Azure data factory for our analysis services, and it is pretty good.

Something that could be improved is the cost because it's very high. That's the only thing I'm concerned about but the technology is good. We are looking forward to getting some discounts because we have a large amount of data.

I have been using this solution for three and a half years. The solution is deployed on a public cloud. Azure is the cloud provider.

It's much more stable. It's good. We haven't had any downtime during the past two years. The solution has gone down maybe once.

It should be scalable within the coming years because data is growing and the business is growing.

Right now we have about 300 users, but by next year we might have around 2,000 because we also have a retail side, which could also use the platform. Some of their roles are in the executive layers and the managers layers, and reporting line people also.

We are planning to increase the usage. This is a transformation phase, so we are currently using SAP business objects, and we are on the Oracle database. We just moved to Azure cloud with the data warehouse and Power BI tools.

My team works with support. As far as I know the technical support is good, but occasionally it takes a little bit of time.

Previously, I was using SAP, which is good. The technology is great. It has many more features than Microsoft SQL, like the data architect and performance.

My plan was to use SAP HANA, but we had an acquisition in our company, so we got a new team and new managers. The head of BI decided to go with Microsoft, however, my POC was already accepted with SAP HANA and AWS cloud hosting. We went in the other direction and started using SQL because the people who were hired were more familiar with the Microsoft technology rather than SAP. 

It is mostly straightforward. There were no issues. It takes about two or three months to prepare. Development takes another three months. It takes almost one year to just kick off the project with live production.

For deployment and maintenance, we used seven or eight people. Most of them were developers and DBAs, and some of them were business analysts.

We used in-house developers and had some consultation from Microsoft.

There is a return on investment because based on analytics, we are reducing the number of people who are doing the analytical part so that it's an automated process, and the data will be available to everyone, including business users.

Licensing fees increase depending on size and performance. If you want higher performance, you should go for a different course.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

My advice is to know your use case and requirements so that you aren't surprised after deciding to get this product and realizing in the implementation that you need much more space. You at least need to make a massive POC to know if the product will give you 100% what you need.

We use Microsoft SQL Server as our main database. We implement our solutions to the client site, providing the machines and the SQL Server license depending on their requirements.

The SQL Server is being deployed on-prem. Most of our clients are from the pharmaceutical industry. If there is a physical database, they want a self-hosted server always on-premises. However, the market is slowly adapting to cloud servers. Scalability and security have increased, so now people are going with cloud servers like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. Most of our clients are hosted on-premises and they have their own server, so we don't go with any cloud server. However, we are planning to move ahead with cloud servers for many of our clients.

The replication feature, user interface, reporting services, and notification services are really good. They are providing SQL Profiler and sqlcmd as their integrated software, so we don't find it difficult to integrate any of our third-party applications with MS SQL because all of them support MS SQL very clearly. As a part of optimization, it is good for processing huge amounts of data.

Performance could be improved. There could be more support toward PHP-based websites and toward providing direct plugins for connections, and the related services or application services could be improved. The user interface could be improved so that someone with less knowledge could easily integrate and use that particular module software.

In the next release, I would like to see a separate tool provided to schedule backup or implement backup solutions on any of the servers that Microsoft has installed. This would be a small utility which I could open and point out the backup parts as well as the type of backup I want. Once I decide the time and set it up, it should be able to connect everything and then accordingly run that back up on an automated basis. 

Right now, people are making their own utilities to do that same thing, but it would be helpful if we could get it directly from Microsoft. Apart from this, it would be helpful to have small plugins or API-based connections, which could be used for integrating MS SQL with different platforms.

I have been using MS SQL Server for 11 years, from the very first day of my job. MS SQL is widely used because its compatibility is good, especially with the .NET Framework because most are Microsoft products. The integration and the response are good, especially if you have huge amounts of data.

Now in the market, there are NoSQL options like MongoDB and Hadoop. Previously, there were pretty much three main databases: MS SQL, Oracle, and MySQL. MySQL was mostly used for small software, but many enterprise software were using MySQL because of the configuration, the compatibility, and the performance.

If you're using platforms like ASP.NET and C#, then you will want MS SQL Server because enterprise-level Microsoft provides many features like analytics services, reporting services, notification services, and now they're providing Microsoft Azure integration services.

MS SQL is very stable. However, the corruption of databases needs to be handled more accurately. If I'm using MS SQL Server and my server accidentally restarts or one of my machines restarts accidentally, then usually the MDB or the MDF file is corrupted. That corruption of files should be handled more efficiently because the client loses most of the data. Of course, the backup plan should be more efficient, putting less load on the server. That needs to be improved and more optimized.

Scalability is good. We have worked on almost 25 loads of data and 35 loads of records in a month. Most were working fine, but after time the process slows down a bit. In MS SQL, the initial 70% would work fine, but when the database starts and the load gets full, it causes slow processing. But considering the cost, features, and compatibility with Microsoft, it's a very stable database.

I have not been in a situation where I required help directly from MS SQL Server because we have our own service team that handles those issues.

Initial setup was a bit complex, but it's doable because it has improved a lot. Previously, it was very hard to install MS SQL. If I had the 2016 version already installed, it allowed me to install 2018 as well. The report features were distributed between two services, and that's where it causes problems.

We implement our solutions to the client site.

For personal websites and personal software that isn't used by more than 100 people, I will always go for MySQL for two reasons: MySQL is free and the enterprise is very low in cost.

Oracle Enterprise is another option, but the cost is high when you consider that MySQL is free.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

Microsoft's modules are really good. The syntax used for running the query is really easy. Their options for concurrency and locking are good, as well as their prices. They have created separate models such as distribution services and replication services. They are really good options so that if I want to take that service, I pay for it. If I don't want to, then I don't install it and I don't use it. Modular installation is something that I like about MS SQL Server.

If you have a lot of knowledge about MS SQL Server, you will be able to handle huge amounts of data very efficiently. However, you should make sure that you have regular backup protection. 

The servers which you have to purchase for installing, implementing, or managing MS SQL Server need to be optimized in a better way so that you get optimized performance from MS SQL.

Out of all the tools in the complete SQL Server package, I'm mainly using Toolbox and SQL Profiler because I'm using SSIS packets, so we're using job scheduling a lot. And sometimes we are creating the SSIS packages, so I'm using SQL Server for MSD for maintenance purposes. SQL Server is quite user-friendly. I have experience with Oracle and PostgreSQL, so out of three, I like SQL Server a lot.

They could increase the intelligence of SQL Server. That would be good for us.  There are some good intelligent features in SQL Server. However, they need to increase the intelligence because people switching to SQL Server from other solutions are not so familiar with it. I've been working with SQL Server for the last six years, but people are coming from MySQL or Oracle, so it will take one or two months to adjust. Still, they could add some intelligent tools to convert Oracle into SQL Server something like that. 

And sometimes when I'm writing a function, there is already a predefined structure available. So if they defined their structure more precisely, that would be good for us. And the last thing I would like to add is that SQL Server should handle queries more like Oracle does. For example, you submit a query in Oracle, and the whole table comes up. In SQL Server, you go to the table, right-click, and it lets you see the first 200 rows. Then on top of that, you can add 200 more rows.

So in place of those 200 rows, if I can update all my table records or search my table record without a new search query, it'll be very beneficial. That functionality exists in Oracle, but this feature is not available everywhere in SQL Server. So if SQL Server had the feature, it'd be great because SQL Server is lacking only on this point. For example, one of my clients is a semi-technical person, so I have to train them to file a query in SQL. And they say that Oracle is much better. Say, for example, that I wanted to query a particular employee from a list of all staff. So the query output comes, and they can directly filter out the data by just applying the filter. They don't have to use the drop-down menu and search for all the employees with a given name. 

I've been using SQL Server for the last six years. I'm working with SSIS, SSRS, or MDS. These tools are part of SQL Server, and the back-end queries are developed in SQL Server. 

SQL Server is stable. SQL Server has crashed only two times in six years, but it wasn't a major system error. 

It may be a licensing issue, but sometimes its operating speed becomes slow if we have multiple users. It's lacking some performance, but it's acceptable because we have a heavy load. And I would like to add that we're running SQL Server and SSIS at the same time. So while I've found that SQL Server is quite fast, SSIS is a part of SQL Server. It is just for data testing in India. But if a person knows SSIS, then they usually have very little knowledge about SQL and vice versa.

I know both of them. I found that maybe it's a bad habit, but I'm using SSIS packages. And in the SSIS package, I'm using Toolbox from SQL Server to improve the latency. Implementing both together takes a little time. And one more point is data handling. I am just forwarding the error names, and there are multiple errors in the SQL Server tool, but what if a person comes to work under me and has only one or two years of experience?  Sometimes it might be difficult for them to understand what the errors mean. For example, when joining data, it's easy to implement the inner joint. In the inner joint, there are two columns, so when there's an output error, someone who is inexperienced with SQL Server might not understand. Error messages should be a little more precise and defined, so it's easy to understand.

Setting up an individual SQL Server is pretty straightforward, but when you are implementing multiple tools, it's more complicated. In terms of maintenance, for the DBA part, there are two based in my company because I am on a master device, so they don't allow me to maintain the server part. So one person is from South Korea, and the other is from China. They are handling my SQL Server. So maybe there are multiple teams, but I am contacting these two guys, the DBA. And I'm MDS, so I'm a single person. There are two people on my team, and I have one junior staff member. So I have a three-person team, and there are two DBA sites because I'm discussing my master team. I am deployed on the business side, and there are more than 80 people who are end-users of SQL.

If you're using SQL Server along with SSIS and SSRS tools, it works pretty smoothly and all. When working with Oracle SQL, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc, there are a few problems with the connection.

Overall, SQL Server is good, but sometimes, optimization becomes a little bit tricky when you're using SQL Servers in place of Oracle. For example, while I was implementing two queries one time, the SQL Server gave me the wrong results. This wasn't because of their internal modules. So there may have been some missing data, but SQL Server failed to identify those issues. SQL Server needs to improve there.

For example, say there is a line with a value of 136 or 137. The second value is a space, and the third value is null. And the last one is space. So a space means this is also null. So you are comparing these four values, and if you don't have any idea about data, it's a little problematic. So cases like this, we can deal with such queries using syntax, but if a person has no idea how to deal with this, they'll face an issue.

Here's another example. Say there's a team query that means we are erasing data from the teams, and some people are just analyzing the string. So I see data from it, which means the calling system is there. In the calling system, we receive the data to call anyone, and that type of wire call setup is there. So I am receiving a full-text format from the file I have to upload in the SSIS package. And some cells have a null value. It's a text file, so you can understand there are blanks in some places. I don't know the file type, so I am just trying to dump it into our SQL Server. But when I have time to get to that table, I realize that some values are null, space, and blank. So these four values make problems for me.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10. I would recommend SQL Server to anyone because you can use cloud-based services, so it's very beneficial. If you install SQL Server on-premise and on the Azure cloud, it is much more advantageous for you.