SQL Server Reviews

It is used for the backend database for our ERP system and the document management system. We are using its latest version.

It saves time. Our data is also a lot more secure. Prior to SQL Server, things were run in a flat-file database that required a ton more maintenance to keep it running. SQL Server is pretty much bulletproof. It just runs.

The management studio is probably the thing we use the most for running quick queries and creating quick reports. Quite often, somebody comes and says, "Hey, can you find XYZ?" It is so much easier just to jump in there and run a quick query.

They can build more performance-tuning tools in it. They can also make the stuff a little more user-friendly and provide the ability to schedule jobs.

They can perhaps also streamline it a little bit so that it is not so resource-intensive, which would be helpful. SQL Server has a tendency to consume all the memory you allow it to. If you are not careful, you can basically break your server. I would like to see it having a smaller footprint in terms of system resource consumption. 

They might want to consider re-evaluating their pricing. It is expensive.

I have been using this solution for 12 years.

It is pretty much bulletproof. We never had data corruption and database failure. We've had hardware failures, but that's not the fault of the software.

It is very scalable, and you don't run into indexing issues like you would with a flat file. I don't think we've even scratched the surface in terms of its capabilities. Our databases are fairly small in comparison to others in our industry who are using the same software. 

We've got about 40 users using it, and primarily, they don't touch the database directly. They're just using it through ERP and our document management system. They are just non-IT employees. They are office users.

We're using it fairly extensively for the core of our business software, and we will likely increase the usage of it. We've got some projects in the hopper that will take advantage of SQL Server. So, we plan on increasing our usage of it.

I didn't have the need to contact Microsoft support.

We haven't used any other solution prior to SQL Server. It was just a flat-file.

It was pretty straightforward. It basically walks you through the process. It took a couple of hours.

Initially, we used a consultant to set up our ERP system, but that was 12 years ago. Since then, we've upgraded it several times, and that was done in-house. Our experience with the consultant was overall positive.

For its maintenance, we are a department of two.

We have definitely seen a return on investment when it comes to SQL Server.

It is expensive, especially when you have open-source products that are just about as functional and they're free. They might want to consider re-evaluating their pricing.

We purchased it in retail. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of 9,000. There is just the standard licensing fee. If they migrate this product the way they're trying to do everything else, eventually, it is going to be subscription-based, which is going to suck, but that's the way the industry is going, so it is what it is.

If you've never done it before, Microsoft has plenty of documentation and online guides to walk you through it. Just take your time, and follow the steps. If you can do it in a virtual environment, it is better because it is easier to start over if you mess it up, but it is fairly user-friendly. If you have questions during the setup, stop and Google it. The information is out there.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten because there is always room for improvement.

SQL Server is our primary database for identity access management.

What I find most useful in SQL Server is that it's easier to manage and to query. Its databases are well-designed. It's easy to do any changes, and it's easy to query the database through reports and whatever information you need.

There is always room for improvements. In SQL Server, the databases should be able to deal with more data in a faster way. Sometimes, when you have a lot of information running on the SQL databases, the system hangs. Though there are always improvements being done to SQL Server, there's still a lack of speed in being able to process so much information, so the performance of this solution still needs to be improved.

Another area for improvement in SQL Server is its front end, in terms of running the queries, e.g. it would be better if it could give suggestions. For example: When you write something, this solution could have a feature similar to a dictionary's intelligence that will tell you what to write such as the one you have in Word, or in PowerPoint, for example, you'll have the design suggestions for it. An improvement I'd like to see in SQL Server is for it to suggest what you put next when you are writing SQL codes or queries.

We've been dealing with SQL Server for four years now.

SQL Server is a very stable product.

SQL Server is a product you can scale. You can add and remove modules as needed.

SQL Server is expensive if you use the advanced SQL version. If you use the standard version, it's not expensive, because it's included in Windows, in Microsoft. It's very expensive if you use the advanced version. We're using both. For IBM, we're using the advanced version, but then we use the basic SQL Server for the other platforms.

You just pay for the SQL Server license. There's no additional cost as everything's already included.

We currently don't have any issues with SQL Server. There's nothing that we couldn't solve internally, so I haven't had the chance to contact their technical support team.

I'm giving SQL Server an eight out of ten rating.

I can recommend this solution for medium and large enterprises. For small enterprises, it depends: if they use the standard, free one on Windows, yes. If they don't, I wouldn't recommend the investment.

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 use SQL Server for .NET. We have ERP software in the background and we use the SQL Server for its creation.

SQL Server and their offers are very good. You can switch over, export, and do other things. I got access from users and it is very flexible to use.

SQL Server is technically good. For questions or other queries, we go through the internet and they explain it there. I think the structure of their product is good.

I have been using SQL Server for one year and a month.

It's stable. It was very easy for me to handle it.

The free version of SQL Server is time-limited before updating to the paid version. So, sort of more access and more work in your database to help process most of the time. It's better to purchase it for more secure functions.

We have a technical support engineer who handles maintenance and security for SQL Server. I think Microsoft's technical support is also very good.

It's a straightforward installation. I installed SQL Server 2012, 2013 and 2016.

The usability of the free version is limited. They also have some guidelines on how to use the paid ones. You still have to check your IT requirements after purchasing it. We are using a licensed one right now, which has more functionality than the free version.

Most of the application what we use today are SQL-based applications. If you take a Microsoft ecosystem, there are many tools that connect easily with SQL - especially when it comes to reporting and analytics. Power BI is one of the good examples which can easily connect to SQL and then you can pull any report you want. SQL itself has its own tools like reporting services and transformation services. It also helps you to generate reporting and analytics and data transformation.

Overall, it helps our organization a lot. Again, it depends on what requirements and company has, and for what purpose you are using it. However, from an application relational database point of view that we are using today, it helps due to the fact that it comes with all that we need. Also, from a performance point of view, it configures well.

When you use the solution with Azure, for example, you get very good scalability. You can scale fast, whether it is horizontal or vertical.

If we use the product as a PaaS, Platform as a Service, it comes with all the security features you need - including against DDoS attacks.

The product offers good bloc storage, which you can buy at an additional cost. This allows you to have large object storage if you need it.

Over a period of time, their split engine has evolved and in the latest version, they've done a lot. Even from the management tool perspective, a lot of things have been done. A lot of functions have been added.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Technical support has been good.

The solution has the capability to scale.

The pricing isn't as high as other options.

SQL is very easy to use. That's a very good thing about it in general.

Microsoft doesn't have active-active load balancing scenarios. It's always a failover cluster. There is no active-active cluster, which other tools, other database providers like Oracle, provide. If Microsoft can consider or probably come up with an active-active cluster, then it would be good. It will be more powerful in a scenario like that.

The pricing, while not the most expensive, is still quite high.

They have something called Parallel Queries, however, I don't know how it works. I've never tested it in a horizontal way. I'd like to understand a bit more about it and be able to use it horizontally.

I'm new to my organization and have only been using the product for three or four months here, however, previously, I worked with SQL for a long time.

In terms of direct users, there are only a few. However, there are applications that are using SQL and those application's users are 100 plus, or maybe 300 to 400 plus users.

This company is in the phase of growth. If it grows as expected, then definitely the chances are high in terms of the number of users - which means we will scale up a bit.

We have direct support from Microsoft. We have Microsoft partners as well. I don't see any problem with technical support, as we ourselves are capable of troubleshooting. I'm a certified BBS developer. If there any related issues, we take care of them internally. If not, we raise a ticket from Microsoft and we get support from them. They are helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of service they provide.

The solution is very straightforward. It's not too complex. A company shouldn't have an issue implementing it. Once you install everything and get it configured as per your requirements if you are an SQL professional and an administrator, it's very straightforward.

It's doesn't take too long to set up. Within a week you can get it deployed. If you do a standalone module, a week likely is not required. If it is in a cluster module, of course, within a week you can set up a cluster and then get things done.

SQL pricing is slightly high compared to where it was before. That said, compared to other products like Oracle, they are still cheap. It's not overly expensive in comparison to others.

The final price you can expect all depends on your requirements. A standard version of SQL is always cheaper than an enterprise. If you're going to go on a cluster, it's particularly expensive. However, when it comes to the value and what is provided, that is also important.

It all depends on what you need. I cannot just blindly say that it's expensive or cheap as it all depends on your requirement. Comparatively, SQL is cheaper than other products like Oracle. Oracle is really expensive compared to SQL. 

We are customers and end-users.

I'm certified in SQL. I have a pretty good understanding of the product.

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

Whether or not it would work well for a company all depends on what purpose it is being used for. However, SQL is simple to use and simple to configure, and very powerful in terms of relational database and the SQL language and functions it comes with. If you configure it well and then use it well, the outcome will likely be very good.

Apart from the standard SQL database-related features, the 2012 version enables the AlwaysOn functionality which enables two or more SQL Servers that can be clustered, with heartbeat across geographic locations along with high availability failover and 99.9999% uptime.

We have deployed three instances of the SQL Server, i.e., two at the primary datacenter and one at the disaster recovery facility. The AlwaysOn feature has ensured 100% database availability, even when one of the servers is down without any performance issues for the end user.

The Always ON (High Availability) functionality is support only with the MS SQL enterprise edition. It would be beneficial to many if this feature were also made available in the Standard Edition.

I am using the SQL Server for more than 10 years and the 2012 version, I have been using since the last five years.

There were no stability issues. If the initial configuration is done correctly, there are no issues. If the other servers are connected at remote locations, then the connectivity performance plays a vital role and it should be 10-15 ms for best results.

There were no scalability issues.

We have received excellent support from Microsoft and the local partners.

In the earlier versions, we used log shipping to the other servers for the failover and replication requirements. With this version, all the servers are Active/Active and there is no issue related to the availability or failover.

The basic installation is simple, whereas rest of the clustering requires an expert skill level for the configuration and deployment.

When comparing the Standard Edition to the Enterprise, it is expensive but the performance and features meet with the ROI and TCO. Thus, overall, it minimizes the redundant servers, multiple backup copies, the risk of non-availability of the latest copy at the disaster recovery.

The latest 2016 version has many more new features and functionalities, if you have the Enterprise Level Agreement and subscription model, you can upgrade to the latest version.

The Always ON (High Availability) functionality is support only with the MS SQL enterprise edition. It will be beneficial to many, if this feature is available in Standard Edition.

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.

We developed a product for banks and we store the data in SQL Server.

SQL Server has good performance, but it could be better.

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

The stability of SQL Server is very important for us because we provide services for banks. The banks need a secure and stable solution from us and we have requested from the cloud provider to give us this level of service.

We have approximately 10 developers and architects using SQL Server. Additionally, we have approximately four end-users using the solution.

The support from Microsoft has been good.

I have previously used Oracle.

The initial setup of SQL Server is not complicated. 

We have four technicians that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required to use the solution and I am satisfied.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.