SQL Server Reviews

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.

We use SQL Server to store applications. The SQL Server manages various functions, such as digital innovation projects, document storage, handling login credentials, and maintaining authentication and authorization through the database.

Unlike MySQL, SQL Server is advantageous because it allows the execution of stored procedures and commands. It's easy to understand, run, and manage. Also, Microsoft frequently updates SQL Server, quickly resolving issues in new versions.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

My team has five users. 

The tool's deployment is easy. 

SQL Server offers three versions. You can get a free trial for 30 days. 

The solution is easy to understand if you know basic queries. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use it for both development and administration purposes.  

It's serving our data solution needs okay. 

I like that it's the Always On Availability Groups setup. It ensures our servers are always running.

We need it to support Linux for better troubleshooting flexibility.

I have been using this product for five years. We currently use the older versions, SQL Server 2019 and 2017.

We will soon migrate to the 2022 version. 

It works perfectly. No issues there. 

So, it is a stable product. 

There are around 300 to 500 end users using it. 

We use it for our on-premises solutions, virtual servers and SSAS, SSRS packages. Also, our applications are .NET based, so it made sense to use it. 

The initial setup is very easy. It is easy to understand. 

It is an expensive product. 

I would recommend using it , but it's best if you already know how it works.

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. 

There are certain shortcomings in the scalability of the product, making it an area where improvements are required.

From an improvement perspective, the price of the product needs to be reduced.

I have been using SQL Server for more than ten years. My company is a gold partner of Microsoft.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

It is quite a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

My company's clients who use the solution are mostly enterprise businesses.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I am using Amazon Cognito for the first time in my company.

I rate the product's initial setup phase a seven to eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises models.

The solution can be deployed in a few minutes.

The product is expensive.

In our company's daily operations, we use SQL Server for our enterprise applications.

Speaking about how SQL Server played a critical role in a recent project, I would say that in my company, we used it for full management since we had a three-tier architecture and an enterprise application.

SQL Server was beneficial for data management needs, considering the fact that it was used as a part of SSIS packages, which was helpful for importing the data from legacy software.

The performance of the solution was good.

Though I can't elaborate on the valuable security features, I can say that I did not face any security concerns when using the product.

In SQL Server, I manage data recovery and backup with the help of database mirroring.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it since it is easy to use.

I rate the tool a seven 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 SQL Server for tuning data transactional language.

The product helps me tune the transactional language with the databases of our organization.

The product’s most valuable features are flexibility and scalability.

SQL Server could be more robust than Oracle.

I have been using SQL Server for ten years.

The product could be more stable than Oracle.

It is a scalable product.

The technical support services need improvement in terms of communication. It is difficult to understand the accents of the executives from different countries.

The initial setup is easy. The deployment services cost around $2000 to $3000.

SQL Server generates more return on investment than Oracle servers.

The product’s price depends on the specific server requirements.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. It is easy to learn Microsoft products. There is a lot of information available about it on the internet.

SQL Server is used to establish secure storage and protect databases from potential vulnerabilities, including those originating from Slack.

The most valuable aspect is the ability to use jobs and various functions to accomplish specific tasks, which cannot be achieved with standard procedures alone. This allows for a combination of features and functionalities to be employed.

I have experience working with SQL Server 2016 and older versions, including handling JSON data. Initially, I found the JSON capabilities to be less helpful, but over time, they have greatly improved. 

SQL Server now offers extensive capabilities for working with various forms of data, particularly when communicating with text, such as in JSON format. 

I particularly prefer working with these features on Azure, as it provides numerous possibilities, especially in the field of business intelligence (BI). Additionally, the serverless platform offered by Azure is highly beneficial and makes tasks easier to manage.

I have not seen significant returns thus far, but I am eager to enhance my experience by transitioning to work in Azure. This shift to Azure is something I am motivated to improve upon.

I have been working with SQL Server since 2018.

We have not had any issues with the stability of SQL Server.

Scalability is dependent on memory.

The matter at hand pertains to whether we are discussing an issue in general or specifically in the context of on-premises environments. However, it is clear that memory and capacity are significant factors in both scenarios. 

Proper management of memory and capacity is essential to ensure smooth system operation and prevent any performance or stability issues. 

As a result, it is essential to handle these issues completely and appropriately in order to meet the system's requirements.

I have not contacted technical support.

The installation process is not complex, but it requires attention to detail in terms of selecting the necessary services and configuring the Cisco server. 

This ensures a proper setup and a tangible model for effective management. While it may not be complicated, it is important to choose the appropriate features during installation. 

Working with ID was not my primary focus; however, I have had the opportunity to work with it for several companies.

It can take an hour to an hour and a half to deploy.

Maintaining it is more challenging than the initial setup. One of the main concerns is ensuring sufficient memory allocation. The default capacity is typically set around sixty, but it can be increased if needed. If there is insufficient memory, it can lead to server downtime and cancellation of transactions, as exceeding the memory limit poses a risk. Therefore, it becomes crucial to address this issue by allocating more memory resources. Additionally, backups and restores play a significant role in ensuring data safety and recovery in case of any issues.

For a brief period, approximately one year before 2018, I had experience working with the open-source version of SQL Server. During that time, I found SQL Server to be the preferred choice, in my opinion.

I developed an application for specific purposes related to McDonough. Using Microsoft SQL Server, I constructed the entire database and implemented supporting stored procedures. This application was commissioned by the European Union to enhance government institutions and similar entities.

Additionally, I worked on financial-related stored procedures specifically related to Serbia Card, as part of a project for the USA.

We acted as a subcontractor for S&P within your company. I have extensive experience in SQL Server, particularly within the Microsoft environment.

They should think twice before they do anything and double-check. Definitely.

I have explored different options such as SonicWall and open-source solutions, but my preference lies with SQL Server. I find SQL Server to be fantastic, as it provides comprehensive functionality and makes tasks incredibly easy. 

Working with Postgres is also simpler compared to other databases like Oracle. Perhaps my familiarity with Excel has made SQL Server more intuitive for me. While I understand that Oracle is known for its complexity, I appreciate that its code and syntax bear similarities. 

Overall, I have a strong affinity for Microsoft products.

I would rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

We use the solution to provide the database layer for multiple applications.

We have been using this solution for 10+ years.

I have had issues with SQL Server but Microsoft support has been able to resolve them quickly and most came down to configuration/design errors and not a stability of the product issue.

SQL Server is quick to install < an hour.  Additional features increase the installation time.

The SQL Server pricing model is based on CPU cores that your database server utilises.

To others looking into using a SQL Server, I would say that it goes down to the application that you are developing and what funds you have available to run the total system.

We're primarily using the solution for our health record system.

The use of a solution with SQL Server has helped standardize how we import, store, and report data. It is a standard that many applications use so we are able to buy pre-made solutions instead of having to develop a solution and the data can be moved from application to application easily.

The solution comes at a more effective price than Oracle. 

It's a little bit more advanced than using MySQL or NoSQL.

It's more prevalent in the industry than SQL Postgre.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

The product is scalable. 

The stability has been mostly pretty good.

There is a lot of information about the solution readily available online.

Every time Microsoft comes out with a new version, they like to move everything around. Updates are a bit intrusive. For example, it used to be in a certain place and then they update it, and now I can't find it.

Technical support could be better. 

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.4. I have used it with several different companies and help upgrade several versions.

With the versions we have, the solution is quite stable. That's one of the reasons we don't immediately download the latest version. We wait a little bit before we go to the newest version. We want to make sure it's very stable beforehand.

The solution is very easy to scale. We have between 300 to 500 people that use it. 

Microsoft's tech support is really hard to use. I would rather look outside of Microsoft for solutions. When needed we usually pay the one-time fee but only in rare instances where a deep dive is needed to isolate the issue.

Positive

SQL's been the main solution for this company. I have, however, used Oracle in the past with other companies.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

It can be complex depending on what you're trying to do, however, it has a good user base and user support groups, so there's lots of information. If you're trying to do something, likely somebody else has already done it, and you can usually find that information through a user group or a forum, or even on YouTube or Google.

Implementation was a joint effort with our team and the vendor team. Most of the vendor team was India based and was very low-level for best practices and security. We had to clean up a bunch of their generic implementations and correct code.

That is a complex question since there are too many variables that are outside the range of IT to answer.

The pricing is pretty decent. It's less expensive than Oracle. 

While the solution started out really reasonable, it's gotten a little bit more pricey, as Microsoft keeps changing how they want to license it.

Whether you're using it in the cloud or on-premise changes the costs involved. A lot of times it might be more cost-effective to do it in the cloud. Microsoft includes a lot of the licensing in the cloud.

The evaluation was based more on the applications and the solution that the business unit wanted to use which are easier to support if they all use the same database structure. The most common was SQL Server.

We're just a customer and end-user.

We're not using the latest version. We're probably one or two versions behind.

I'd advise new users that you want to know what you're going to use it for. I would say it's more suited to a more midsize or larger company than a mom-and-pop shop - unless they're tying it to some software that uses SQL.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Performance-wise, SQL cannot handle large amounts of data. In the next release, I would like them to commission SQL Server on Linux, as has been announced in the past but has not yet happened.

I've been using SQL Server for thirteen to fourteen years.

SQL is a highly unstable server - there are patch updates on the Windows server every week, which is why we only use it for non-critical systems. 

The initial setup was very easy - much, much easier than Oracle - and took about a day to complete. Microsoft is less demanding because everything is GUI, unlike Oracle, where you need to use command lines.

This is a very cheap product.

SQL's performance is good enough if you have a low amount of data. For those looking into implementing SQL Server, I would advise first analyzing your requirements and whether your system is critical or non-critical. If it is non-critical, go for SQL as it will save you in terms of cost, but if it is critical, avoid SQL as it will bring you down in one day. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.