SQL Server Reviews

We primarily use the solution as a backend server.

There are a few applications of the Oracle product for our data sitting on the SQL Server as well. 

It's useful as a backend server.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

The stability of the product needs to be improved. It's really not stable enough.

In Microsoft, the Active-Active options are not available. There are a lot of requirements that are coming right from the customer, which may not be provided by Microsoft. There are a few use cases where we do need the Active-Active options instead of Active-Passive, yet those kinds of options are not available for Microsoft.

We've been working with the solution for going on five years.

We've struggled with the stability of the product. We'd like for it to be more stable and reliable. 

The scalability is very good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

We are a customer and an end-user.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. While the scalability is there, the solution is lacking a few aspects that customers really need.

We use SQL Server to manage and store information.

They have improved the UI and ease of accessing the database and server which is good.
You can load it up and start using it from the very minute it is implemented.

I have been using SQL Server for two and a half years.

SQL Server is stable. We have more resources that are using it, I am more familiar with SQL Server. I have been using it for a long time. Most of the time it has been stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 30 people in my organization using this solution.

The technical support is okay.

The installation is straightforward.

We have administrators and engineers that do support the solution.

We are on a monthly subscription and the price could improve. However, the price has worked out well in some deployments. The problem is you never know what kind of services have been installed and you have to be in touch with many people, such as which servers are active or which are not. I did face a couple of issues in terms of subscriptions and the pricing model. They have improved over time.

I would recommend this solution to others. My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is you have to consider the industry demand and the benefits or advantages of a solution before you choose, for example, Oracle or Microsoft.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We use SQL Server as a database management system for all of our projects.

While this is a reliable product, it has room for improvement.

Although Microsoft SQL was accessible in some projects, we did not use it everywhere. It is determined by the project. It's quite beneficial in some circumstances, but it couldn't support SQL databases in others, consequently, we used other suppliers like Oracle, Informix DB, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and others.

We have been using SQL Server for quite some time now.

We use it both on-premises and in the cloud. It is dependent on the projects.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

SQL Server scales well.

In the future, we may expand our usage.

I don't have any issues with the technical support.

We evaluated each product after using it, starting with Informix DB and ending with Oracle.

Oracle, Informix DB, PostgreSQL, and MySQL are among the products we use.

It's quite easy to install.

Completing the installation is not an issue.

My position is not related to installation, but if it is necessary, I am capable of doing it.

It requires the purchase of a license. Our company's products all have licenses.

It is appropriate for small and medium-sized businesses.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We use a tool called Tosca for automation and all the automation artifacts we are saving are on the SQL Server.

The solution is easy to use and provides similar features to other competitors.

SQL Server could improve by increase the performance, it cannot handle large amounts of data. I did not find any additional features compared to others solutions.

I have been using this solution for a few years.

The solution is stable.

We have not scaled the solution extensively, but I do not foresee any problems.

We have been using Hadoop and Spark.

The installation and configuration are straightforward.

We have a team of three people doing the backend maintenance and application support for this solution.

We did not encounter any issues that we would need support. 

I would recommend this solution to others for small operations. For bigger applications with large amounts of data and a lot of users, I would not recommend it.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.

The solution can be used for a host of applications.

The maintenance and tasks should be improved so as to reduce database files.

The complexity of the database should also be reduced, so that its size can be diminished. 

I have been using SQL Server for around ten years. 

The solution from the 2008 version is stable. I like the defined database and the ease with which it can be used and that enquiries can be made. 

I believe the solution to be scalable and plan to increase our usage. 

Installation is relatively easy, although I do not recall how long it took. 

We made use of an integrator.

There is not much technical team required for the deployment and maintenance. It consists solely of engineers.

The licensing is on an annual basis. 

Prior to going with SQL Server I utilized the Oracle Database.

There are around 15 people making use of the solution in our organization. Every computer processing unit has its own license. 

I would recommend the solution to other users. 

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for recording transactions and information related to the reservation of a service. 

The product is very stable.

It offers very good documentation. When there are some little issues, it's always very easy to go into the documentation for troubleshooting purposes. There's just so much documentation on hand and a really great community around the product that is very helpful.

It's a very complete product.

We've found it to basically be pretty problem-free.

The integration with other products has always been quite good.

The security of the product has never given us any issues.

We're quite satisfied with the solution. There aren't any outstanding features we would like to add.

The interface could be updated to make it slightly more user-friendly.

We've been using the solution for more than ten years. It's been a while. It's been more than a decade at this point.

The solution is very stable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's excellent.

We haven't really scaled the solution all that much. At the moment, we have measured the scalability in a horizontal way. When we needed to have more installation and more capacity, we split the database into a different SQL Server instance.

In the future, we'll likely need to consider scalability more. We are also moving in the last two years, also to a different architecture from a monolithic to a more microservice architecture. Maybe the scalability can be more easily handled in the applications that are talking to each other and leaving the database out of the equation.

While end-users are hard to quantify, I can say that likely half a million users have come through our system for transactions.

In the near future, we will continue to use the solution. We might use it for the next four or five years, although it is hard to say.

We've always been able to rely on the fantastic documentation and great community around the product in order to troubleshoot problems. It's very easy to fix issues as they arise due to the public knowledge available to everyone.

We've mostly always used this solution. Last quarter, we moved a little bit to a NoSQL database. We have done a little experiment on Cassandra however, previously, it has always been on SQL Server.

We're considering moving away from the solution right now and trying something new. The owner of the company wants to experiment with other technologies and see what is out there, which is why there is talk of change. However, it's not a reflection on this product, which has been largely quite good.

The initial setup is not overly difficult. It's pretty straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

We have 12 technical people on our team that can handle the implementation.

The last version we used is 2015 if I'm not mistaken. We don't jump immediately to the latest version due to the fact that, usually, we look for stability. We make the move to the next version in case of some integration or limitation. We prefer not to move onto something that might have bugs or glitches that need to be patched. It's more secure for us that way. 

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's doing exactly what we need it to do. We've very happy with it.

We primarily use the solution for our daily operations.

The solution has provided our clients with some valuable data feeds.

The performance is a very valuable aspect of the solution.

SQL is very easy to manage.

Occasionally the performance, as good as it is, is a bit off. We sometimes experience memory spiking. If they could maybe fix that aspect of the solution, that would be quite helpful for our organization.

We've been using the solution for more than ten years at this point.

The solution is extremely stable. We haven't had issues. We don't really experience bugs or glitches and haven't had the system crash on us before.

The scalability of the solution is very good. A company that needs to expand should be able to do so fairly easily.

We have about ten people using SQL at our organization. Some are in Operations. Some are developers.

The data we have is constantly expanding and growing for us, so we already are increasing the capacity of the SQL server. We'll continue to do so as necessary.

If we have any issues, we contact Microsoft. We only do so if something happens and we can't fix it ourselves. It hasn't happened too many times, and it usually doesn't revert to me to reach out, so although I know we have used them in the past, I myself have no direct experience dealing with them.

It's been about ten years since we started using SQL, which is quite a long time. I don't recall if we used a different solution before that or not. If we did, I don't know what it would have been.

I'm not sure how to answer as to if the solution is straightforward or complex in terms of setup. I didn't handle the deployment, so I'm not the person who would be best equipped to answer these types of questions.

I'm not the person that deals with billing and payments, so I don't know what the cost of the solution is, or if it is monthly or yearly billing. 

I'm not sure if we would have looked at something else or what it might have been. If there was research and a comparison was done, that would have been a decade ago. It's been a long time. 

We are using the 2008 and 2017 versions.

I'd like others to know that SQL is easy to use and easy to manage. It also offers pretty good performance, in my opinion.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's not too expensive, or at least that is my understanding, but I am aware there are lots of open source options out there as well companies may want to consider.

Mainly, I do infrastructure support. We do fine-tuning, information, configuration, higher-level availability, and replication. Also, single and clustering solutions - both kinds.

We do on-premises and cloud deployments. This is because some customers use Microsoft Azure, mainly in the financial sector, such as the Sri Lanka Government, who has many databases that cannot go on the cloud. The financial sector also works with on-prem databases.

I am mainly using the SQL Server from 2019. That's the latest version since last January while our customers are mainly using the 2016 and 2017 versions. This is because we are not providing the latest version. We are testing some bugs now. In terms of functionality, I think the 2017 version is better. I have not fully tested the 2019, so I cannot give a recommendation for it.

Its availability for a secured server is one of its most valuable features. Also its replication features are valuable- we can manage eight replicas. Their clustering and availability groups are also valuable.

They do not offer the SQL Server Management tool via the installation. It is a separate tool I use when I'm trying to configure the mirroring with SQL Server Mirroring. This is not supported and I'm getting some errors on the database mirroring. So sometimes I use the 2014 management console and the 2017 server for that. If the customer does not agree to that, I use a query for the database mirroring connections.

Additionally, I think some kind of machine learning related feature should be included. This is because technology is moving fast and all of the customers are getting it easier. So developers are making machine learning products. That's why they should include some kind of a machine learning feature here, too.

Which initial setup are you referring too? It has multiple solutions and installations, some of which are very simple. Clustering is very difficult to setup.

Setup time depends on the customer's environment, including database size, the number of databases, and the amount of data. Last week I did a PLC with two databases and one availability crew. It took two days because one day I did clustering. It can be done in one day but the customer provides another day for that.

Also, because the customers haven't kept some downtime, we request some kind of downtime for the primary server. So sometimes we plan downtime when we need some days for the complete environment.

I'm working with Microsoft solutions in Sri Lanka. We have a technical team for the DB side only - Microsoft SQL Servers, Azure platform, SQL servers. All of those have a security device. And as I mentioned, installation is per requirement. There is no need for a couple of engineers for that.

In terms of maintenance after the deployment, it also varies depending on the number of databases.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Microsoft MDS an eight. I'd give it an 8 and not a 10 because it lacks some features, such as machine learning.