SQL Server Reviews

We are currently developing our own business application and we are using SQL Server as the database. We deploy it as a .NET application and the webserver is IIS. The SQL is a three-node clustered system.

The most valuable feature is the system architecture.

The number of concurrent users is too limited and other databases are better than SQL in this regard.

There are limitations with load balancing.

We would like to see support for in-memory processing.

We have been using SQL Server for more than seven years.

SQL Server is a stable product.

We are the largest micro-credit finance company with more than thirty companies internally. We have 25,000 employees using the business application and SQL does not scale to our requirements.

I think that Oracle is better suited to smaller applications.

The supporting sites are good.

I have also worked with SAP HANA.

Setting up the database clustering is too complex.

Our current deployment has been ongoing for three years and it is not yet complete because our application is still being developed.

Our in-house team is handling the deployment.

We are currently searching for other products to replace this one with.

My advice for anybody who is considering SQL Server is that it works well for small applications. However, large business applications that use a content delivery network or geographical location, it is not suitable for.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use on-premises, standalone deployment of SQL Server for our own CRM database. There are around seven to eight users in our company. 

SQL Server suffices our main requirement of a small database, and it is also very cost-effective.

The features that we have found the most valuable are reliability, availability perspective, and current scalability. 

The scalability and the high availability feature can be expanded or improved. Currently, there is a limitation on scalability. 

A feature similar to the Oracle Diagnostic feature can be included to provide a better user experience. 

We have been using SQL Server for around 10 years. 

Stability and scalability are both good. It suffices for our current requirements, but if we want to scale up in the future, it has limitations.

We sometimes contacted Microsoft technical support, and we also have in-house Microsoft support. We are happy with the support.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

Our in-house team handled the deployment. 

SQL Server is a cost-effective solution for a small database. 

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. 

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. 

Not a ten because it has some limitations. When considering overall scalability, reliability, features, if you look at Oracle, it's still ahead of SQL Server.

My primary use case is for data mining and processing data from plants. It's normally just for databases for the systems.

The availability is the most valuable feature. It has high availability. It also has good performance. 

In terms of improvement, it could use more integration with other products.

I have been using this solution for around ten years. 

The stability is good. We don't have any issues with stability or scalability. 

We have contacted support when we had Windows issues. They are okay, not the best but not the worst. They know what they're doing but they take a little too long. The response time isn't so good. 

The initial setup is mostly straightforward. The time it takes to deploy depends on the circumstances. It takes around three or four hours. 

I would recommend this solution. It's a good product. I am satisfied with it. It's familiar, we've been using SQL for a while. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement. 

We have a Windows Server environment.

This is a production system for secure document issuing in a government department.

It helped reduce licensing costs and also running costs, as well as the learning curve.

The most valuable feature is replication because we had several replicas of the SQL Server database in different geographical locations.

I would like to have more replication scenarios.

Our correlation and relational databases are on Microsoft SQL Server.

The company uses two platforms: MySQL and Microsoft SQL Server. Some applications are on MySQL, and some applications are SQL Server. 

I have pretty much worked all my life in Microsoft SQL Server.

I am in the process of creating a data strategy to consolidate multiple siloed data centers. Once my plan is finalized and approved, then we are going to execute it on the Microsoft platform.

• Performance-wise, it is an excellent tool.
• It is a Microsoft product, so there's a lot of support. 
• It's not a new tool; it has been around for a while. 
• It is one of the top five relational databases in the market. 
• It is very user-friendly.
• There are a lot of resources available for it.

I would like to see native plugins built for other platforms versus having to buy third-party plugins to tap into S3 buckets and AWS Cloud. Right now, it does not have those built-in plugins.

I know that they are building SQL Server for the Unix environment, which is in the beta version, and not out yet. This has been a long time wish for a lot of people. Once that is out, we'll be able to tell how diversified they have become in regards to other platforms.

It hasn't 100 percent on scalability and third-party plugins.

It is one of the most stable relational databases out there.

With the new versions and Azure, which is in the cloud, these do accommodate scalability. Until the 2014 version, the scalability wasn't there, but from the 2016 version and above, I think they have taken all these scalability features into consideration.

I have not used technical support for Microsoft with my current company. I have used them in the past. It depends on the tier of support that was purchased by the company as to the level of support that you receive.

Our company has probably been using this solution since it was released.

It is expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Since we are a cloud-based company, there is AWS pricing on top of the SQL Server pricing. The Enterprise Edition can typically sell from around $1000 dollars a month, which is not cheap. Then, there is an additional one-time Windows cost, based on the code, which can go anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 for the license.

From my perspective, the two vendors for this are Microsoft and Amazon (AWS).

They are working on making it better with every release, compared to Oracle Db2 and IBM.

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. It's not cheaper any more, like it used to be, but if you can afford it, then it's the best.

When I select a vendor, from a tool perspective, I make sure that they have full support available, have been in the market for awhile, and the solution/application is stable.

From an open source perspective, like MySQL, Aurora, and MongoDB, they have done a great job in making a robust database container.

Very pleasing and satisfying experience.

• Used to create queries
• Implemented store procedures
• DBA can also use this effectively.

• Used to create queries
• Implemented store procedures
• DBA can also use this effectively. 
• Reduces other manual work.

• Creating and executing SQL queries, transactions, ACID properties
• Creating and implementing stored procedures.

Every good tool has its own limitations. 

• First of all its cost. It is very high. 
• We need a good amount of RAM to properly use this. 
• Sometimes, query sticks in between. 

But our organization provides great RAM, so we don't have any issue with its speed.

No.

It's good.

No.

Go for it. Thumbs up.

The customer's MES system  use it.  The database system desgin as always on architecture.

Like Data guard in Oracle , always on contain double data and sync data by using transactions store in transaction log

It is easy to establish, and the license price is lower than that of Oracle.  

Otherwise, our customer could can replace primary databases from Oracle into MSSQL AG

Base on  windows cluster,  the always on no needs complicated config process.

Just click and click following  GUI interface.

table partition options,  that is very useful to separate unnecessary cost. 

For legacy data,  we can do partition swith out and store into flat files or old tables.

When it necessary, we can switch in back.

Horizontal partitioning.  

In that case,  cold , warm and hot data can be distributed into different database not only table partition located on different FGs .

Sometimes , when windows server suddently failed, the database still can be turn on when DB server started.

When do "sp_rename" or "table rebuild" , the cluster index or non-cluster index no needs to rebuild at same time

Customer always comes out many questions

I have no choice. our customer choose MS SQL 

 initial setup straightforward

ordinary level

database administrator

Migration local database into cloud

No, I  have to accepted it 

subpartition is necessary

• Effectiveness in a production environment
• New features test

Besides that, SQL Server has become very expensive like Oracle. Its stability delivers performance and usability.

• SSMS
• SSIS
• Reporting services
• FCI clustering
• AlwaysOn
• Basic availability groups.

I would like a mature real-monitoring built in into SSMS, even a trace file analyzer.