SQL Server Reviews

We use SQL Server with Sage products.

It is used by our finance team and also human resources.

the database management tool is very easy to use and largely meets expectations

As SQL Server could not support the number of connections we desired, we were forced to go with Oracle. This is an area that needs to be improved.

for 04 Years now 

The solution could be more stable

The performance in terms of simultaneous connection must be reviewed.

We do not pay for technical support.

No

The initial setup is time-efficient and can be done independently.

There is no need for developers or managers to deploy and maintain the solution. One or two systems' administrators are sufficient for its deployment.

The deployment is on-premises. We installed the solution on a server and this on the Windows server. The user is provided an application for connecting to it.

great

The licensing involves a one-time fee.

We evaluated Oracle as an alternative.

For my part, SQL Server is aimed at small and medium-sized businesses, I would give it an eight out of ten.

I would not recommend it for a large company that has to support more than 40 simultaneous bi-directional connections to the database

On-premises

It is used for everything under the sun. We're currently using it for a health pass for a medic aid information management system. It is also used by companies in banking and retail.

We are using SQL Server 2014 on Windows Server 2012 platform, and we also have SQL Server 2016 on Windows Server 2016 platform. I have primarily worked on the hardware, but I am now also working in the Amazon AWS cloud.

The entire solution that we're deploying is built on Microsoft SQL Server as a database engine. Our solution is completely engineered for that, and if we attempt to deploy it in any other database engine, it is going to be a huge nightmare.

Microsoft SQL Server is one of the better database administration software packages out there. It runs primarily on Windows Server platforms, but it can also run on Linux platforms.

Primarily, the data replication and the backup areas can be improved. It should have data replication capabilities and uptime capabilities.  The native SQL Server Backups take more time than do the backup processes from LiteSpeed, and the backup compression is a little less.  

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.5, which came out about 30 years ago.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can run the database engine on the C drive, or you can run it on a large cloud array or a disk array. Currently, we just have developers and testers accessing it.

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you know how to set it up, it is easy, but you have to learn that over time. For a new user, it is detailed. You need to have the right things in place at the right time before you actually install the software.

To create an instance, it takes about an hour overall. This includes deploying the basic system, applying the latest service pack, and then applying the latest cumulative update.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, the number of staff members required would depend on the implementation. It requires coordination amongst teams. It is a team effort. The database administrator creates and runs the jobs that create the backup file. You need to have somebody for copying the backup files to offline storage. You also need to have system administrators for setting up the hardware.

I would advise others to just be familiar with Windows concepts.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. If you're familiar with Windows concepts, it just works.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

We use it for both database services and analysis services.

I believe Always On is the most valuable feature. It's also easy to use and not very tricky.

Analysis services have a lot of room for improvement. Basically, manageability on the available tools. They should have improved them already. They are not very efficient. My main headache is with the analysis service, and it would be really good if Microsoft developed some additional tools that are more user-friendly to manage the analysis. This is both from the perspective of management, users' roles, and performance analysis. My main wish for SQL Server would be that management tools for analysis services grow and mature a bit.

I have been using SQL Server for about 15 years.

It's stable. The database service is better than the analysis service, but it's quite stable. It's as stable as the support it has. If it has a good infrastructure and good machines with disks, it's quite stable.

SQL Server is vertically scalable. We have about 3,000 people using this solution.

We haven't used their technical support a lot. I would say it depends on the scope of the help you need. On a scale from one to ten, I would give technical support a seven.

I don't know the exact prices because my focus is essentially technical and not on the bills. A few years ago, they changed the billing policy for the Enterprise Edition, and it became less attractive. But I believe they are still cheaper than Oracle. SQL Server isn't cheap, but it's not expensive either. 

I would tell potential users that it's important to have a good infrastructure, but my advice is for any database, not only SQL Server. It's important to have a good infrastructure and a good network if you're planning to use Always On and clusters. I believe the most important thing is the infrastructure where the SQL Server will be based.

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

We are primarily using the solution for pulling data and analysis.

In the auto industry, are the dealer management systems for which there is kind of portals from which the dealers are maintaining information can have access to retail data, bookings, and details surrounding individual customers.

We are fetching data and using it for analytics purposes, basically.

The basic features of the solution are excellent overall.

The initial setup isn't overly complex.

The pricing is reasonable.

The solution scales well.

The solutions very fast. It reads and writes six to eight times faster than any other tool.

The solution is very different from Oracle, which is a product we also use.

Mainly the data capacity needs to be improved. The data values are limited. They are smaller or medium scale. The MySQL is working fine, however, when it comes to large data sets or large data volumes, Oracle can handle them better. The backup capacity needs to be bigger.

When it's medium or small-scale data volume, people are referring to MySQL, however, when the data volume grows the people are referring to Oracle. In my estimation, the stability is fine.

The scalability of the product is pretty good. It can scale effectively and expands better than other options.

We have around 40 users on the solution currently.

Our main usage is not for the database and we simply use basic aspects of the platform.

Technical support isn't an aspect of the solution I know too much about. I've never been in direct contact with them. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We also currently use Oracle. 

The initial setup isn't too complex or difficult. It's pretty straightforward. It's less complex of a process as compared to other solutions.

The cost isn't overly expensive. It's very reasonable. Our customers are happy with the price. It's in a good range.

We are partners with Microsoft. We use multiple deployment models, and typically those are private cloud or on-premises options.

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been mostly very satisfied with the capabilities of the product. It's fast. It's our preferred product.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

Private Cloud

We use SQL Server to import data from different source systems. Depending on requirements, you act as the resource and can schedule jobs in the Azure environment. The server can be stopped when not required so there's no cost when it's not being used. We make use of the pipeline to put the data into the SQL Azure environment and extract it to the server. I'm the associate manager.

The best feature in SQL Server is the CDC mechanism for adding data incrementally. Another good feature is the ability to store any type of data in SQL Server, it's a big advantage.

You need to be careful if you have a very large amount of data, because the platform can be degraded if you're not on top of it. Oracle handles that issue better and it's the main problem I have with SQL Server. The performance should be better.

This is a stable product. 

This product is scalable, we have between 20 and 30 users in our company. We'll continue to use this product. 

We haven't needed to contact technical support. If there is an issue we use the different SQL forums and we can easily fix issues. 

The initial setup is straightforward, you can install with basic knowledge. Installation doesn't take long at all, I did it myself. 

There are no annual licensing fees, you pay when you use the product. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10.

Public Cloud

We use this solution for data warehousing and products to the platforms developed by the company. 

We like everything. We use all of the features that SQL offers. 

We like business integration, database, and analysis.

I would like to see more integration with other platforms.

I have used this solution for more than ten years

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable product.

It's a scalable solution and we have 1,000 users in our organization.

We are stabilizing, so we are not going to increase our usage with SQL.

Technical support is okay. We don't have any issues with them.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It took a couple of hours to install, no more than that.

We completed the implementation ourselves.

We have a team of 34 admins and engineers to deploy and maintain this solution.

We purchased our license and the pricing is fine for us. 

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

On-premises

SQL Server is used as database software. People who are using .NET and Windows-oriented tools prefer SQL Server.

It is easy to manage for the administrator. It is also easy to use for applications that are Windows-based.

It is a very stable product, and it has got backup and recovery tools.

Its security can be improved. When you look at the Windows environment, it isn't the most secure environment. It is exposed to so many attacks. They continuously need to improve the security of the platform on which it sits.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years.

It is very stable.

It is pretty scalable. You can scale your machine and nodes. Instead of using just one node or one server, you can use multiple servers and then cluster them together for failover and performance. You can also do replication across sites. Currently, we have around 50 users.

We have got support from Microsoft. They are very quick at resolving issues. They are quite good.

We were using different products. 

It is easy to install. It might take 20 or 30 minutes to install.

I installed it myself.

Its price is fine. You have to buy the license and support.

We compared it with Oracle and MySQL. We got a lot of dev inputs, and we also looked at the vendors supplying the solutions. We found SQL Server to be the best and chose it because of the vendor.

I would recommend this solution to others. We would definitely keep on using this solution.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

On-premises

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.

On-premises