We performed a comparison between kdb+ and SQL Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and others in Relational Databases Tools."The solution returns data quickly, and data retrieval is fast in kdb+."
"Most valuable features include: high availability, clustering, save backup and recovery."
"We have many users, between 50 and 100 using the SQL Server product."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"The ease of administration, in general, is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"We have found the solution valuable because we are able to easily create a query, shrink, backup, and make new tables."
"I like the availability group functionality. We are setting up more clusters using availability groups. The enterprise licensing or Software Assurance makes it a little bit cheaper as well. It is nice to have that read-only copy for reporting and everything else."
"We have found the solution to be scalable."
"There is no lack of features."
"The solution should have a more user-friendly user interface."
"SQL is a highly unstable server - there are patch updates on the Windows server every week, which is why we only use it for non-critical systems."
"When we are talking about event space architecture, scalability generally comes into play. For example, I might have a hundred thousand transactions a second, and then all of a sudden, I build something that everybody in the world wants. The next thing I know is that I have a million transactions a second. So, to be able to process the throughput, I'd have to scale up, and then when the holidays are over, I'm again down to a hundred thousand transactions, and I want to scale back down. SQL Server is not going to do that. In this way, it is not very scalable. One of the reasons why they want us to use Kafka is so that if we need to, we can do that, but our base program is on SQL Server. So, this is where we would use a Kafka event stack so that if I need more servers, I can just write a command, and I can have more consumers, more brokers, and more producers, and when the holiday season is over, it scales right back down again. SQL Server is not going to do that."
"Something that could be improved is the cost because it's very high. That's the only thing I'm concerned about but the technology is good."
"From a DB administrator perspective, I would like to see more space requirements and space capacity history, so that we are able to see which DBs are growing, and by how much per day or week."
"SQL Server needs to improve in performance and monitoring because there are no specific monitoring solutions to detect and analyze events for issues in the database. You have to use another monitoring solution. If Microsoft could provide an update to this solution or provide a monitoring solution specifically for SQL Server, it would be very valuable."
"Support could be improved."
"I would like to see improvements made to the stability of SQL Server, as well as more analytics requirements."
"SQL Server doesn't have proper bitmap indexing, proper columnar databases, or proper implementation of materialized views."
kdb+ is ranked 19th in Relational Databases Tools with 1 review while SQL Server is ranked 1st in Relational Databases Tools with 260 reviews. kdb+ is rated 9.0, while SQL Server is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of kdb+ writes "An easy-to-deploy solution that can be used for data ingestion and usage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Server writes "Easy to use and provides good speed and data recovery". kdb+ is most compared with Oracle Database In-Memory, MariaDB and SingleStore, whereas SQL Server is most compared with MariaDB, SAP HANA, Oracle Database, LocalDB and IBM Db2 Database.
See our list of best Relational Databases Tools vendors.
We monitor all Relational Databases Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.