SQL Server Reviews

While I don't like SQL Server so much, the selection was for clients so we needed to utilize it. Of course, one thing is that as great with this and other Microsoft products is that it's quite well documented and there are also light versions available. If you need to do something, you can also try it somehow on your own computer and so on. 

If I'm helping a client to define what they need to have or what they need to do in a public sector procurement process quite often we cannot fix the database as it would be limiting the competition. That's why we never rule out the SQL Server; it should be included as an option at this level.

The solution is stable. 

I haven't had issues with sizing or scaling.

If it would be more powerful it would be pretty nice. The performance is not always the best. 

Whenever we were setting up the databases, there were some character problems that did not exist on some of the other solutions. However, the exact issues are hard to recall and list. I prefer Linux solutions. That said, when we began the previous project, Microsoft SQL Server was not available for Linux platforms yet.

Nowadays, it's my understanding that there are different versions. I haven't been checking if the current versions are supporting Transact-SQL and stuff like that. I remember that when we had the first Linux-based SQL Servers were introduced, they were, of course, a bit limited from the feature point of view. Whenever it is Unix or Linux or whatever platform, it's easier to manage them and to handle them whenever you are doing remote work. 

I'm not so big fan of the Microsoft platforms as a server. However, whenever it's needed then it's needed. If you are a consultant, you need to adjust your whole mindset to whatever it's needed.

I've used the solution, approximately, for several years. However, there have been gaps. There are different phases, however, I could count something like seven years where I was in an architect position in any project where this server was utilized. 

For the needs we had for the client it was sufficient. Whatever we needed to have - whether more server or more virtual server, the performance for the platform wasn't as good as I would like. I'm not entirely satisfied.

I haven't been utilizing the scale capabilities. I don't have a clear impression on that, however, for our purposes, we've never had an issue.

I've never dealt with technical support. The databases were handled by the service provider or service operator of our clients. We have a public sector client and they have their partner who is handling or is responsible for the platforms. Therefore, if we had a problem with the platform, the right bureaucratic way to go about getting a resolution is that we contact the service provider they have. They probably contact Microsoft. The process is bureaucratic.

I'm also familiar with other servers such as Oracle. While we must do as the client wants or needs, if I could choose, I would probably utilize databases like Oracle or open-source databases more often. It depends on the cases. That said, quite often I'm in a position where I cannot suggest the technology, so I use what the client requests.

We didn't pay anything for it as it was provided for our client by the provider. I cannot say about the enterprise licenses or anything. When we began the work and we needed it for our own machines, I prefer the solutions which are available, of course, as open-source or are free. And Microsoft had this express version of their database which we can utilize as well. In that sense, it is okay, however, of course, in general, I don't know.

I've been working for a client as a consultant so I'm helping them with deployments. With one client, we're using on-premises deployments. Our client has their own service provider or service operator so they have their own IT partner who is handling their databases. If I have understood it correctly, the databases were on-premises for our client, however, it's a bit complicated when you are having and dealing with large-scale public sector actors in Finland. There are plenty of kinds of players involved.

Whether or not I would recommend the solution depends. If you are utilizing some solutions where you need the Microsoft platform-based database, it's completely okay. And if you have, for example, the solutions where you have utilized Transact-SQL or whatever, it's okay. However, if you have this kind of situation where you can make your own choices freely, you have options. And if you're utilizing Java or C, et cetera, quite often the path or logic would go towards some of the databases on the Microsoft side.

There is no clear answer. Quite often when you begin to think about your solution or you think about what you are building, the database is the first thing you decide on. There are other factors too, such as a business case or if you're just building from scratch and so on and so on. I wouldn't like to say that I never would recommend it, however, if you are building everything from the scratch and you can make all the decisions, likely it is not the first option you have or I'd suggest. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight 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.

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.

The solution is an RDBMS and can be used to simplify customers' requirements for a back-end database. The main function of the solution is to store information from front-end users.

The most valuable feature of the solution, compared to other RDBMS solutions, such as Oracle MySQL or IBM DB2, it is more user-friendly and has backward compatibility. For example, if you have an application that requires an old version of SQL Server and you have the latest version of the license, you are able to install and use it in backward compatibility mode. They keep supporting the existing legacy application. Additionally, the solution is simple and if it is configured properly it performs very well. 

I have used the solution for approximately six years.

I find the solution to be very stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support is only provided to the customers having a subscription-based license with a Software Assurance server. For other forms of licensing the solution will not provide support. 

I have previously used other RDBMS solutions, such as Oracle MySQL, Maria DB, PostgreSQL, and IBM DB2.

When comparing PostgreSQL, Oracle MySQL, and Microsoft SQL, Microsoft SQL has an advantage over the other two server databases because it provides a graphical user interface by default.

The initial setup of the solution is very easy and the time it takes depends on the architecture required. If the deployment of a cluster is required then the setup may take up to three hours, whereas standard environment deployment needs half an hour. 

The solution can be installed by our selves but the use of an integrator makes it much easier. 

The solution requires authorization in either the form of perpetual licensing or subscription-based licenses for two years. If a perpetual license version is purchased then customers have it to the end of life, whereas a subscription-based called server with Software Assurance, has to be renewed every two years. 

The areas that need improvement are with regards to the commercial aspect of the solution, the licensing cost could be reduced in order to help customers to adopt it.

I would recommend this solution. However, the customer has to make sure it fits their use case.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. 

We are using SQL Server for the backend of our SAP and are planning on moving to a cloud version soon.

This solution has helped our organization by providing a backbone for our SAP. We would not be able to operate without it.

We have found the solution valuable because we are able to easily create a query, shrink, backup, and make new tables.

We are using an older version of SQL Server and the migration to a newer version could be made easier.

If you are a new user then this solution could be difficult, they could improve by making the overall usage easier.

In an upcoming release, they could improve the ability to customize the solution.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately ten years.

We have not experienced any problems with the stability of this solution.

SQL Server is scalable.

We have not used the support from Microsoft. However, we did have freelance support a few times.

The installation is very easy. We did not have any challenges.

The price of the solution is very expensive. If I went with the cloud version of SQL a license would cost me approximately 11,000 Riyals per month.

We have a team that has evaluated other solutions before we chose SQL Server, such as Oracle.

I would recommend this solution. However, Oracle has a good reputation for quality that might be a better choice.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our banking database.

Overall, it's a very good device.

The solution has proven to be very stable.

The scalability potential is very high.

The initial setup is very straightforward and the deployment happens very quickly.

The solution could offer more integration with other platforms.

I've been using the solution for about ten years or so. It's been about a decade. It's been a while. 

The product is very stable, from my experience. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. I've used it for ten years with very few issues. The performance and reliability are very good.

The solution can scale quite well. If your company needs to expand it, it can do so pretty easily. It's not hard.

We currently have 5,000 users on the solution.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

We've dealt with Microsoft technical support in the past and we were very satisfied with the level of service provided to us. They are knowledgeable and responsive. 

The initial setup is straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as difficult or complex. It's actually very simple. A company shouldn't have too much trouble with the implementation.

The deployment was fast and barely took two days.

We have five people on staff who can handle the deployment and maintenance for us. They are administrators and engineers.

We had a consultant that assisted us with the implementation. They were very helpful and made the implementation very simple.

We pay a yearly license to Microsoft. I can't speak of the exact cost, however.

We're likely using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. We have been very satisfied with its capabilities over the last decade.

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

We're using it for our on-premise servers, and we have the latest version of SQL Server.  

We use SQL Server for the database for Microsoft Navision. We also use it for the Track-It application that helps users in logging in their IT requests. We also manage all the IT inventory through Track-It. It does automatic auditing and traces online IT equipment.

We have end-computing devices with a server-client type of model. We have a server. All terminals are dumb terminals, but they get connectivity from SQL Server, and it has worked really well. We operate in difficult locations, such as Mombasa in Kenya and Mozambique in Maputo, where power is a big problem. Instead of desktop computers, we went for thin end-computing clients, and it worked really well with SQL Server.

It is a stable product, and it runs seamlessly. It is not complex.

It has been there for a long time, and they are doing whatever bug fixes they have to do. 

They have too many licensing options. They may want to simplify its licensing and bring it down to two, three, or four categories from ten to fifteen categories. Having so many different licensing options makes it difficult to decide which one to choose from. They can club things together. This is an area where they can make things easier for customers.

I have been using SQL Server for ten years.

It is a stable product.

It has pretty good scalability. In terms of usage, we have two different types of usage. For end-computing usage, we have about 600 or 700 students who use the media labs. For Microsoft Navision and Track-It, we have about 100 staff members as users. 

It is being used fairly extensively. Microsoft Navision is one of the core solutions of our business, and it is used on a daily basis. End computing is used by students. Because of the pandemic, for the last 14 months, everything is closed, and everybody is remote, so end computing has not been used, but Navision continued to be used. After the school reopens in each location, we will continue to use it even more. We definitely have plans for expansion.

Their response is fast.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. In case there is an issue, Microsoft's tech support people come online and help you.

For its deployment and maintenance, two people are required at each location. We have one database specialist and one IT service delivery engineer with networking knowledge.

It comes with the bundle package that we have. We have Microsoft Volume Licensing, so we don't have to pay for it separately. It is a part of the package.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I have nothing to complain about.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. 

SQL Server is enterprise database software. It provides the back end for any number of different applications, including web applications, and other types of internal applications, and software-based applications. It also provides a back end for enterprise backup tools. It's incredibly diverse in terms of its use case.

Scalability, cluster ability, ease of use, ease of implementation — these are all great. 

In terms of exceptionally large databases, it doesn't scale as well as Oracle. It scales excellently and it's flexible and it can provide a solution for exceptionally large databases, but it doesn't work as well as Oracle does for this particular use case. The performance starts to drag in the case of exceptionally large databases; especially where there's a lot more feature functionality. With Oracle, there's a lot more tunability.

I have been working with this product for 20 years. 

It's exceptionally stable. The ease of implementation and the ease of use can't be beaten. I think it's outstanding overall.

Scalability-wise, it's outstanding. The one limitation it has is that at the very, very high end of petabytes-sized databases, it doesn't scale as well as Oracle. Still, you're not going to run into very many exceptionally large databases. Almost 100% of the use cases for it scale very well.

Technical support is available for a separate cost. If you don't have a subscription or a support contract, then you don't get support. You'll be stuck with online forums — that's how you'll have to get answers to questions. Assuming you have a support contract with Microsoft, it's outstanding.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

This solution is available at a much lower price point than Oracle. Plus, it includes 99% of the same feature functionality. I'd say it knocks ROI out of the park.

If you're interested in using this product, make sure that you have a good understanding of best practices for database implementation. Make sure to incorporate them in your deployment right off the bat. You won't want to have to go back and have to take production databases down because you have to change the configuration, post-implementation. Make sure you get all of these things done, pre-production implementation.

They've come a long, long way in the 20 years I've been working with them. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a rating of nine.

We develop software for another company. We mainly develop on-premises solutions.

We use this solution with our accounting ERP software. Our product is called Orchida ERP and we have many clients in Egypt who are using this software. Its database is SQL Server.

We mainly work in ERP. 

We currently have a small project in SharePoint for Microsoft, but 80% of our work is with Orchida ERP

We have our software with SQL server for 20 years. Our software will not work without SQL Server. 

We provide consultancy in installing this solution for our clients.

It is easy to maintain, and it's easy to set up.

It is also easy to develop. Overall, it's easy.

It can work with many different sizes of data, anywhere from 10 to 50 gigs of data.

The performance of SQL Server is perfect. It does not need to be enhanced.

If you work with more than 50 gigs of data, it will run slower than Oracle.

Security is an area that can be improved. It could be more secure; more security is needed.

We have some clients who have been exposed to the SQL injection virus. 

We would like SQL to be able to manage this problem or to come up with an alerting system to alert the user that the server has been exposed. This has become more of an issue because of the Corona Virus and people are working from home.

Some have been infected by the SQL injection Virus and will lose their data.

I have been using  SQL Server for 20 years.

Most of our clients work with version 14 and version 19, which is the latest.

It's a stable solution.

SQL Server is scalable. Our clients are medium-sized companies, not large. They don't have professional IT.

We have 20 people in our organization who are using this solution, but we have many clients who are using it. We sell our consultancy service to more than 200 clients every year.

If we have any issues, we search Google and the internet to resolve them.

Our company has not used Microsoft Support. 

We have tried many versions of Oracle, including Oracle 11, Oracle 12, and the latest version, which is easy to maintain and similar to Microsoft.

Some of our clients are also using Express SQL. It is not good, but also not bad. If you have small amounts of data then it will meet the requirements.

The installation is straightforward. It is easy, you continuously click the next button until you are done.

It takes 20 to 25 minutes to install. There are no issues with the installation, it is very basic.

We did not use an integrator, we have an in-house team to install and implement this solution.

Some of our clients purchase the license and others do not; they use Express SQL Server.

One of our clients is using an SQL Server on Linux. We don't use it but it is a very interesting product. It's a good trend, the Linux environment has become a market share that is growing in Egypt.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

We can't compare this solution with other databases, as we do not have enough experience with other similar tools. 

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

There are many applications between Microsoft and SQL. Most are in the legacy direction, but some are more modern databases with those application requirements. We have used it for multi-purposes such as back-office products applications and cloud office environments.

The solution is easy to use, has rich feature sets, and is business-oriented. 

They could improve the solution by allowing more portability between on-premise and the cloud.

More improvements can be brought around hyper-threading. Like we see in work engines of hyper-threading. It is very complex in terms of the way they do it. If it was via CPU or something else, it would be much easier.

In a future release, they could improve by expanding their form base capabilities.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

I have found the solution to be very stable.

The solution is scalable.

The support is good for the solution.

We used Oracle and DB2 in the past.

Initially, the installation took a while. We have started deploying configurations that are now standardized. We have automated it, but it can still be problematic. For the most part, the installation is now quite easy. Additionally, The way they have many configurable parameters that influence performance is in a way problematic.

We did the deployment of the solution and we have a team of 15 people doing the deployment and maintenance.

The licenses are really expensive. Their licensing model should be more simplistic.

I would recommend this solution to others and we plan to keep using it in the future.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.