SQL Server Reviews

We primarily use the product for internally developed applications. There's some business intelligence and data warehousing used as well as some financial information.

It's evolved over the years. It's become a truly useful enterprise situation and an enterprise tool. The amount of data that it can contain is significant.

The ease of administration, in general, is the solution's most valuable aspect.

You can make the solution work pretty fast. Performance isn't an issue.

The initial setup is quick and easy.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good. 

Its ability to handle certain kinds of large data could be improved. Its high availability, segmentation, and disaster recovery features can be improved upon also.

There are not really any significant features that I'd like to see added to it.

I've been using the solution for a long time. It's been 25 to 30 years at this point. 

The solution offers very good performance and is pretty reliable. 

The stability is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution scales pretty well. I would rate it at a four out of five. If a company needs to expand, it shouldn't be an issue. 

It's used pretty extensively by a lot of people in our organization. It's used for everything from management to clerks and external users. Clients use it in some way, shape, or form.

I've used technical support in the past and I would rate them as average. They aren't bad. 

I've also used Oracle and MySQL in the past. This company hasn't switched. I've just used other solutions in various roles over the years. We have Oracle in place for our financials still. There's no need for my SQL and Postgres. They're open-source tools.

The initial setup is very straightforward and the deployment is quick. You can have it up and running in three minutes. It's not a problem to get it set up.

You only need one person to handle any maintenance tasks on it. 

We handled the entire deployment in-house. We did not need an integrator or consultant to assist us.

The licensing cost varies widely, depending upon what methodology you employ. It could be very cheap, for example, it could be less than $2,000. Alternatively, it can go up to well over $100,000.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I'm currently using the most recent version of the solution. 

I'd advise those who wish to use the solution to first practice a bit with it.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. It's a very solid product. It's very stable. The ease of use is pretty high and the amount of support that's freely available for it is significant.

We have hundreds of databases that are using SEL Server and there may be other capabilities.

It's a standard product that is used with standard applications, which is why we use it.

There is no lack of features.

There are newer models that are available on the market. The agility of the non-SQL-based features is relevant on the market.

Integration is one thing but it's making use of all the iterations or the new cloud data result.

Today's architectures are in many different directions. Not always via SQL relational databases, but also NoSQL databases, and they have a pretty good Java database as well.

We have been using SQL Server in our organization for 10 years, but I am not a day-to-day user.

We use a couple of the versions. We have used the 2016 version and most likely have used some newer versions as well.

SQL Server is a stable product.

We don't have any issues with the scalability of SQL Server.

We have hundreds of thousands of applications using this solution.

We have a dedicated Microsoft account team and we have also dedicated support conditions.

Areas in our organization use AWS Lambda.

We use other relational databases. The most important product besides SQL Server is Oracle. We use SQL Server and Oracle equally.

I am not a patient person with installations, but there are no issues with the installation of this solution.

We have a database team to maintain this solution along with an engineering team, an operational team and we have eternal resources.

The enterprise-level license agreement is very complicated. It's complex, not only with SQL server but with a number of products.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

The solution is very fast. 

The data is reliable and I can normalize the database and normalize the data so that I can collect whatever information I need. If I collect the data correctly, then I can share whatever report I want.

Normally, when the data is in the database, it will always be a long-term information holder, instead of putting it in Excel or something like a spreadsheet or something like that. 

For me, the initial setup is very easy as I have years of experience with the product.

I could use some more guidelines about making the correct queries to understand the structure better. I'd like to have a better idea and to understand how to make a nice query, which is good for the system and good for the hardware.

Sometimes you have to have different data in different tables and you want to merge them into something together. I'd like to be able to do this in a different way. 

Sometimes I need to have more optimization. I want to understand how can I optimize this or that? Especially now, when we're working with a lot of camera information, where we are using a lot of cameras for photogrammetry, we need to take this data and put it into the SQL Server and we would like to be more flexible with the data.

With so much data, things can get slow, which is why I would like to be able to understand how to better optimize queries. 

Those who are not familiar with the solution can find the initial setup intimidating and difficult. 

I've been using the solution for 30 years at this point. 

I don't have so much experience with scaling. It's my understanding that that task is a specialist job.

I have dealt with technical support in the past. I'm happy with them. They have been helpful.

I'm not only working with SQL Server. When I need the database, I will always do it in SQL Server or Maria Database or something like that.

For me, the initial implementation is easy, however, I know a lot of people can't set it up and believe everything is hard. It's difficult if you didn't know how to do it. You have to know, in the beginning, how to define what hardware you need and how many disks, for example. You need to understand if it should be a cluster disk or not. Long ago, it used to be hard disk access only. Things have changed. 

The solution does come at a cost.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

This solution is one of my favorites and I would rate it at a nine out of ten. I'm very pleased with its capabilities. 

Microsoft has a freeware option that might be called something like SQL Server Express. I'd advise new users to try to put that one up. It's easy to implement. If you need more data, then buy the correct server. The SQL Server is expensive, however, when you see how nice data is installed and how easy you can get access to it, it may be worth it. If new users need help, they can always go to YouTube to find answers for the freeware.

SQL Server has a steep learning curve, however, it's worth it to learn about it and understand it. 

We are using the latest version.

We can use the solution for the same application. On the database side we have Microsoft SQL and on the operating system side we have 2019.

I want to see one improvement and this involves the replication between the DC and DR. We have limited options at the moment and it does not lend sufficient support for the number of databases. This means we have a huge number of databases, topping approximately 2,000. For the moment, this particular replication is not supported by SQL. 

The support number of databases needs to be increased, as well as the database number of databases that it supports. That support cannot be found when it comes to the replication between the DC and DR. 

I have been using SQL Server for ten years. 

The solution is sufficiently stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

When it comes to the speed, knowledge and customer-friendliness of the technical support, we feel these to be good. 

We did not use other solutions prior to SQL Server. 

The initial setup is easy, flawless. 

It lasts a single day. 

We handed the implementation on our own. 

This involved a technical team of 15 people. 

There is a need to pay for the license for SQL Server. We have an enterprise license, which we consider to be fine. 

We have 10,000 customers. 

I would recommend the solution to others. 

SQL Server is good and I rate it as a nine out of ten. 

I love the developer version. Microsoft tells you about all the cool things they provided for everybody. You can develop and do anything with it. It's really good to learn. Oracle will not give you that much freedom, and Microsoft really kills it. 

You don't do anything with it but develop, learn, break, and push it to its limits. If there are problems, you show Microsoft or ask them, "what's going on here?" There is good community support for the developer edition, and that's what I really appreciate. You can teach people about it without limitations. You can have small databases created. You can keep it for a year and then work on it. It's a good thing for learners and developers.

The price could be better. It costs a lot, and competing databases like Postgres are free.

I have been using SQL Server for about ten years.

There are problems in all systems, and I don't see any difference between open source and proprietary solutions. SQL Server, Postgres, and Oracle are all vulnerable. There are no known issues per se, but any system can be broken. There is nothing special about this database.

SQL Servers and other databases are all scalable. I just don't see any problem with scalability.

Whenever we have issues, we talk directly with Microsoft. They are responsive, and they help.

I'm more into open source solutions, and I love Postgres. I've worked as a database administrator as well. But I really hate all the tools used to manage performance or backup or just any of those disaster, recovery, and availability solutions. I hate them. They really impose a lot of overhead in a demonstration and aren't really flexible. When you're in the cloud, you don't have to worry about most of those things. 

Some of them still exist, but the cloud providers do provide them and you stick to that. You enhance them or add some more features, but really the most hated feature is, making sure that your database really can recover from many kinds of disasters. Resiliency, the most important part and when that is really managed by the cloud online, the overhead costs  are removed. The rest is really easy. Performance is okay, and there are indicated spots for data because I work with financial data and a lot of it is our important critical data. So, the cloud is really the best thing that happened to us.

When it comes to the initial setup, most of them can be automated. For example, most setup settings for progressions, management, disaster and recovery, failover, and failback. Most of those things can be automated and provisioned into one kind of pipeline. Connecting that data to an application and even provisioning from the code repository through Jenkins. Those things are really easy to automate.

It costs a lot.

I would advise potential users to use SQL Server with Microsoft Azure. I don't recommend managing it locally.

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

Usually, we use a lot of the vendor software, like ManageEngine, and stuff like that. They use Postgres, however, I prefer to use Microsoft's SQL server. We have a couple of servers and we integrate that information into it. I can run reporting and analysis off of that.

There's a lot of great features. I like T-SQL, which is wonderful. The backups are excellent. There's a lot of things that are much easier to manage. All of the features and functions within the SQL language itself, the store procedures, I really, really enjoy. The security has been excellent.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

The stability is very good.

We find it easy to scale if we need to.

I would like to see better integration between their link server and other platforms, such as IBM, due to the fact that, a lot of times, you want to set up a linked server so you can be on SQL and pull data off of another server using that link server. Sometimes they don't play well together. There just needs to be better integration for those types of situations.

I've been using the solution for about eight or nine years at this point. 

The stability is great. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. The performance is great. 

Scaling is easy if you need to do it. You simply set up a cluster and you can just grow it up.

In our organization, all the end-users are pretty much integrated into it and using it. As far as developers, there are two developers and me that are using it.

We haven't used tech support as we used to have a business partner that wanted us to talk to them instead. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be if you need assistance. 

Here at the company, they used Postgres, and what I didn't care about it was that it was okay, but it didn't integrate with a lot of the other applications. I felt Microsoft did a better job of that.

The setup is pretty straightforward. The only thing that sometimes gets weird is if you have somebody that's needing an ODBC driver from another type of application back to the SQL server. It's usually that other application trying to figure out what it needs to connect to SQL. It's not really SQL's fault.

We are customers and end-users.

We are using both the latest version and a previous version of the solution. I don't have the exact version numbers on hand. 

I would advise new users first to get help implementing it unless you know the solution well, as there's so much that it can do. A lot of times you can actually make a little mistake. Say if you're going to go in a certain direction, if you get some advice, you may be much happier going in another direction completely.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been quite satisfied with its capabilities. It's an excellent product that still has room for growth.

We primarily use the solution mainly for databases on all types of applications.

SQL is the all around leading Database server

The solution is very stable. 

The scalability of the product is great.

We'd like the deployment process to be better in the future. 

The licensing is pretty expensive.

I've been using the solution for 20 years at this point. It's been two decades. We've used it for a while now.

The solution is stable and the performance is great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The product scales well. If you need to expand it, you can do so.

We have 900 to 1,000 people using it currently.

I'm more on the architecture side and therefore do not directly deal with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

We also use Oracle. We've used it for over a decade already.

The deployment could be easier.

While the deployment only takes about 15 minutes, you have to follow up with a lot of configuration.

We handled the implementation ourselves. We did not enlist the assistance of any integrators or consultants. It was all handled in-house.

We're paying too much for licensing at this time. They need to work on the pricing. They could be cheaper, however, it's also difficult to run the licenses in the right way.

We pay licensing fees on a yearly basis. 

We're a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with SQL. 

While everything is currently on-premises, we're making moves to shift to the cloud. 

We're using the 2019 and 2016 versions of the product.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. In general, we've been quite happy with its capabilities.

I have been working on SQL Server for installations, configuring for developers, and for creating backup jobs from the MBF files.

The solution is very easy to use.

SQL Server needs to improve in performance and monitoring because there are no specific monitoring solutions to detect and analyze events for issues in the database. You have to use another monitoring solution. If Microsoft could provide an update to this solution or provide a monitoring solution specifically for SQL Server, it would be very valuable.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

I have found the SQL Server stable.

The solution is highly scalable. You are able to implement a SQL cluster mechanism for replicating the data between two nodes of the SQL Server. If one of the nodes is down the second node becomes active.

We have approximately 20 developers working directly with SQL Server and approximately 1,000 end-users that are working on the application that is behind the SQL Server.

The technical support is good. We had a big problem and after an investigation, we could not find the solution. We needed to make use of Microsoft support team and open a specific case on the Microsoft panel. They were able to provide solutions for solving this issue.

I have used MySQL.

The installation is not very complex. However, the process could take a long time because you have to follow the step-by-step instructions for the installation. The time it takes to do the installation is approximately two days.

There is a license required for this solution. One of the problems is for smaller businesses to purchases a license because it is expensive for a lot of them to afford.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.