SQL Server Reviews

Most of my clients are looking for a solution within the cloud on Azure and SQL Server databases. It is very cost-effective and scalable, meeting all requirements for small to medium-sized enterprises. 

I generally do not deal with big enterprise organizations that need large data warehouse solutions, however, it fits the needs of those with small to medium data volume requirements.

The Azure SQL Server database requires almost zero maintenance and management. Once I set it up on Azure cloud, everything is managed automatically by the service, allowing me to start working with the database without worrying about administration tasks that are typically needed for on-premise databases.

SQL Server database capacities could be further increased to be more accessible for larger data requirements. Although some of these needs are being addressed by other services like Delta Lake, improving SQL Server's capacity would make it more suitable for larger enterprises.

I have used the solution for more than five years, possibly seven or eight years.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. It’s robust and reliable.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten, as it is highly scalable.

The technical support service probably rates about an eight out of ten. It is very commendable.

Positive

The initial setup is very straightforward and manageable, especially when setting it up on different occasions in the cloud environment.

The price point is very competitive and acceptable, often meeting approval from several clients who have used this solution.

I recommend SQL Server to others. It's a highly effective tool for many applications. 

I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use SQL Server to host our ERP system. It serves both as the underlying database and server application software. This database solution handles all our ERP calls.

We use SQL Server to support Business Intelligence. It also connects with Power BI. We create all our views and datasets in SQL, specifically for Power BI. Previously, we used Tableau but transitioned to Power BI for all our analytics needs.

SQL Server provides access to audio information and audio tables. You can customize and create views. The ability to customize and upload these services is uncertain when migrating, but SQL in a local environment or Azure seems suitable for now. The ability to see tables, reviews, and custom script options is good.

The upgrades are unstable.

I have been using SQL Server for several years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

The support is pretty good. We have never had to reach out to Microsoft for issues. It is a pretty solid application.

The initial setup is straightforward. You need to install technical agents and create databases.

We use Active Directory authentication. If you have access to the database, it's secure. Not everyone with access to the database can access it. Only our IT staff or those who require access have permission. It does offer a high level of control and security.

We have a small team. We could explore Azure Virtual Desktop or engage with local partners if we need additional technical knowledge. We employ a cloud gateway, enabling our SQL database to be somewhat cloud-based. This facilitates integration with various cloud applications, such as the Power Platform. We use Power Apps and Power Automate, allowing us to connect to our database in adaptable and scalable ways.

I recommend the solution if it meets your requirements.

Overall, I rate the solution an 8 out of 10.

We use the solution for data quality purposes like checking, testing, and writing its cases using data validity and quality measurements.

The valuable features are Excel integration, writing a query in SQL Server, exporting the data, and copying the data.

When transferring data from the SQL Server to Excel, the data types are not copied correctly. This issue might be associated with the formatting of the data types. Specifically, the data types for dates and timestamps have not been copied correctly.

In SQL, as with other databases, abbreviations are commonly used to simplify tasks such as writing queries or commands.

I have been using SQL Server for 3 years. We are using V18.0 of the solution.

The product is stable. The community is big.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

The data warehouse engine should be scalable.  It's not scalable. We use it every single day.

I rate the solution's scalability a three out of ten.

I have used Oracle Server.

The initial setup is straightforward. The connection to the database is not straightforward. There are many ways to connect to the database. It may be tricky to choose which way to connect.

I rate it seven or eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The solution is good for a transaction database, but its performance is not very good. One or two persons are needed to maintain an SQL server.

I recommend the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use SQL Server for data warehousing or business-intelligent projects. When you leverage the solution with Azure, it's the only database you'll ever need. Oracle is overpriced, but Azure SQL and on-premise SQL are both great products.

The fact that SQL Server fully integrates within the entire Microsoft ecosystem is a plus.

The solution’s initial setup could be complex, requiring some design of how you want to lay everything out and what type of storage you want to put certain things on.

I have been using SQL Server for 25 years.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

Compared to other solutions like MongoDB and MySQL, SQL Server is a scalable solution.

The solution’s technical support is okay.

Positive

Oracle is an expensive relational database, and its configuration can be overly complicated. Oracle is less user-friendly. MySQL is not a relational database, but it's a flat-file database. MongoDB is a free tool that allows you to get what you pay for.

The solution’s initial setup could be complex, requiring some design of how you want to lay everything out and what type of storage you want to put certain things on. It could be complex, but any database platform will have some complexity.

Historically, SQL Server has been much more affordable than Oracle, which is overpriced.

SQL Server can be used for web applications and Dynamics Business Central. Any Azure app will deploy some element of SQL Server. The solution's security features meet our data protection requirements. SQL Server integrates with Microsoft Active Directory, Microsoft Azure, and Microsoft Entra, making it secure. However, since SQL Server is the most popular product, it's also the most popular platform to be hacked.

The solution's data analysis capability, performance monitoring, and error logging are all pretty good. I would recommend SQL Server to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

I use the solution in my company to take care of the database management area.

The solution should provide users with features to automate some of the daily routines for which there are different tools available. SQL Server should serve as an out-of-the-box tool for database maintenance.

Maintenance of the solution is an area of concern, and improvements can be helpful. The solution should offer an out-of-the-box tool with automatic maintenance procedures, which could make it easier for less experienced people to set up the product easily.

I have been using SQL Server for twenty five years. My company is a system integrator and a Microsoft partner.

It is an extremely stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

I deal with small, medium, and large-sized customers who use the tool.

It takes a lot of time for users to reach out to the right technical experts who can resolve their issues. Users are redirected to go through the medium-level support, who fail to resolve their issues. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have limited experience with MySQL. I like SQL Server more than MySQL. Compared to SQL Server, MySQL requires more technical expertise in order to deal with some easy tasks.

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

The solution can be deployed in ten to fifteen minutes.

The product is offered at a very high price, specifically for the enterprise segment, making it very difficult for our company to sell the product to our customers. In the enterprise segment, the tool has quite a bit of experience. For normal cases, the prices are okay.

For development purposes, the tool is free. For medium-sized customers who don't need some enterprise features, the tool would be available for 200 USD per month. For the enterprise segment, the tool's cost can go up to 6,000 USD.

I have limited experience with scaling SQL Server for large datasets.

Speaking about the most beneficial for our company's data analysis needs, I don't know the huge range of services offered by Microsoft, like reporting or integration services, which make it easy for the users to deal with database manipulation, integrations, and reporting. The aforementioned services offered by Microsoft are quite user-friendly.

The tool covers almost all of the security features for data protection with a variety of access protocols, and the database encryption part covers all the cases in my company.

The solution is easy to maintain if you know what exactly you need to do.

The people required for maintenance depend on the scale at which the product is used in an environment, but under normal circumstances, one person is required to take care of the maintenance process.

My company uses the tool for a variety of integrations, especially with the old legacy systems, which can easily be adapted to SQL Server. With modern architectures and web services, it is also possible to integrate SQL Server with any product in the market currently.

Before buying the product, users should check and remember all the licensing parts of the tool since it can be very complex. Users should check very thoroughly for the use case and exactly what prices they need to pay to use it.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

SQL Server, a widely adopted database management system, is utilized across numerous sectors. Initially competing with Oracle and Db2, SQL Server has gained popularity. It serves as the backend database for a variety of applications. 

The tool's support needs to be improved. 

I have been using the product for 25 years. 

Performance issues are a common concern when using SQL Server. However, it's important to recognize that the problem may not solely lie with SQL Server. It is stable. My team has four members using it. 

I find that using SQL Server is more cost-effective than Oracle. Although Oracle remains the top choice regarding power and stability, SQL Server is steadily catching up. We still have dedicated administrators for Oracle maintenance, whereas SQL Server requires less maintenance. While I'm not entirely clear on all the technical features and comparisons, Oracle generally offers more advanced features, such as table-locking options.

The tool's deployment is easy. 

We also have a data warehouse. This warehouse feeds into Power BI for data presentation. Currently, we're in the process of transitioning because we have various teams and solutions in place.

The tool serves the purpose of managing all the data within a system. It is utilized extensively for storing, processing transactions, and conducting analysis.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. Its ability to integrate with other products is good. The tool is popular and easy to manage. You can find resources easily to manage it. 

In my data warehousing project, I use SQL Server alongside Power BI. SQL Server serves as the data storage solution, while Power BI is used for data visualization.

The most valuable features for database management in SQL Server are SQL Server Management Studio and Visual Studio Code with its administration capabilities.

Improvement in SQL Server should focus on lowering the high cost, especially for environments requiring extensive CPU and memory usage like data warehousing. While existing features are great, affordability is a significant concern, particularly for enterprise licenses. Additionally, enhancements in managing availability groups and clustering could be beneficial.

I have been working with SQL Server for 20 years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten.

SQL Server is highly scalable, but the scalability comes with a price tag. Additionally, for on-premise deployments, hardware purchase is necessary, which can be a limiting factor. I would rate the scalability of the solution as an eight out of ten. We have approximately 500 users at our company.

My experience with SQL Server's customer support has been positive in the past, but recently, I have noticed a decline in responsiveness, and now I would rate them as an eight out of ten instead of a perfect ten. While I used to receive prompt answers to my inquiries, I have had a question pending for several weeks now without a resolution. It seems that Microsoft's focus on Azure may be impacting their support for on-premise solutions like SQL Server.

Positive

The initial setup of SQL Server is straightforward and user-friendly and I would rate it at around an eight out of ten for ease of use. While the basic setup is simple, additional considerations for security may require some tweaking. 

Deploying a SQL Server for testing purposes typically takes around ten minutes, while for production, it can take an entire day due to the additional tweaking required for optimal performance and security.

SQL Server is generally more expensive than other solutions. I would rate the price of the enterprise version of SQL Server as a ten out of ten for being very expensive compared to the standard version. The enterprise version costs approximately 20 times more than the standard version.

We use SQL Server Availability Groups for high availability. It supports our requirements well and is preferred over cluster solutions for its effectiveness.

SQL Server offers advanced security features like data masking, which allows users to restrict access to specific columns, enhancing data privacy and control. This capability is particularly useful for protecting sensitive information from even database administrators.

SQL Server is the primary technology we use, tightly integrated with our existing IT infrastructure and applications. We rely on Microsoft products for seamless compatibility and avoid unnecessary complexity by sticking to a single vendor ecosystem.

My recommendation for using SQL Server is that it is a stable and versatile option with a lot of capabilities. However, there are cheaper alternatives available on the internet that offer similar performance. It is essential to consider whether the cost difference justifies the added performance of SQL Server, especially when cheaper options can achieve comparable results with slightly slower hardware.

Overall, I would rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for continuous integration, including CI/CD integration.

Support could be improved.

I have been using SQL Server since 1992. I’ve used AWS and Azure for two and three years, respectively.

The stability is fine, especially if you're hosting it on AWS or Azure. You can get up to 99.99% stability on AWS.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

You can scale to any extent. You need to increase your EC2 or your app server.

Six team sites with 50 users each are using this solution.

Sometimes the response time was high.

The initial setup is straightforward. Depending on the complexity, setting up the infrastructure can take a while. You can work on MVP. To deploy on AWS, select SQL Server along with several calls and CPU.

The solution was deployed in-house.

You receive other products, like free usage, depending on the number of product shares.

You can use a Cloudflare or web application layer that controls security. Furthermore, you can implement SQL reverse proxy practices for in-house environments and beyond.

To ensure the security of my SQL server, we typically set up a configuration where an API communicates with the SQL Server, and there's a front-end interface. This setup prevents direct access to the database.

Four people are required for the solution’s maintenance, but it depends on the complexity of the solution. You can put one senior and three trainees.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.