SQL Server Reviews

I am an IT professional, I write services for my clients. I provide support services for SQL, firewalls, and operating systems. IT infrastructure support in general is what I provide.

What I like most is the management, as it is very easy compared with other products.

Security is an issue. This is an area that needs to be improved.

There is security built-in, but most of the developers don't emphasize the security enough. When they are building the products or databases, they don't focus on the security of the database.

I have been providing services for this solution to my clients for five or six years.

We have had no issues with stability. It's one of the most stable products.

This solution is scalable. It is easy to expand.

In the five or six years that I have been handling SQL Servers, I have not had to contact technical support. 

Their documentation is sufficient for troubleshooting and maintenance activity.

I am also using Sophos.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have our in-house team of more than 10 engineers for maintenance.

Pricing is a bit on the higher side. It could be reduced.

To others who are interested in using this solution, I would say go for it. It's a stable database that is easy to configure and maintain. I would suggest this solution when compared with other databases.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

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.

Performance improvements, optimizer enhancements. Most of our clients have high demands for performance, and this version of SQL Server delivers what we need.

We are a professional services company, so we use SQL Server to help our clients achieve their goals. Our clients use SQL Server 2016 for their most demanding mission critical systems, for data warehouses, and big data solutions.

The Query Store is a good start, but I expect the query processor to be a lot smarter and to use machine learning in order to improve and adjust execution plans automatically.

One year.

Since we are working with a lot of clients on many edge cases, we encounter bugs and stability issues once in a while, but these are rare.

If you know how to work with the product and leverage its various features and possibilities, then you can achieve great scalability.

Microsoft offers several levels of technical support, which is OK, but not too good. But there is a wonderful community with lots of resources on the internet, so most issues can be solved without contacting Microsoft support.

No, I have been using SQL Server for the past 20 years.

The initial setup is very clear and friendly. It has improved from the previous version.

Unfortunately, SQL Server licensing is a very complex topic. I advise people to consult with a licensing expert.

No.

Download the Developer Edition for free, install it on your personal computer (it’s very easy), and start exploring. If you need help with something, just search for it on the internet, and you’ll find a wealth of resources about everything you need.

The ability to organize and structure our data in order to extract and provide it to various products and systems within our organization. It is widely used and has great online support from many third-party sites.

We're able to easily upscale previous systems to provide an efficient interface for our internal clients to do their jobs effectively.

Learning SQL could be easier. Some inbuilt tools to enable faster query writing would be very useful.

I have used various versions for at least 25 years, on and off.

No, none.

When upsizing, some tools do not do a very good job of scaling efficiently and lots of after tweaks need to be made.

From Microsoft -- poor/very expensive, but there are many other helpful resources out there.

Used MS Access, but data ports became too large for it to support, so we needed a product to take us to the next level as our data ports grew.

A lot of initial reading was required to carefully manage the process of setting everything up correctly.

Not my area.

No, others evaluated.

Do your homework first and be prepared for a tough learning curve.

• Business intelligence platform
• Analysis services (multidimensional and tabular)
• Relational database features
• Data extraction and transformation (integration services)

It provides the ability to create an end-to-end automated BI platform through data management and provisioning, transformation and publication.

Data platform development process improvement: Integrating the features of Visual Studio Team Foundation Server data projects for SQL Server development. Allows for smooth operation between development environments in conjunction with an agile process to release database changes.

Hosting multidimensional OLAP instances in conjunction with Tabular, rather than the either/or installation.

OLAP multidimensional ongoing maintenance - automated partitioning or interface for streamlining the mechanism within the cube and data layers.

Integration Services: There is a great deal of room for improvement here in that thepackages are the least extensible part of the platform. Even with the feature ofplatform variables, since these are not easily managed and deployed. Our testers have had a great deal of difficulty swapping environments, particularly where the connection information changes (underlying database name, for example). Changing servers with identical database names is less problematic.

I've used it since its release in 2012 until now.

No issues encountered.

There were some avoidable issues, primarily due to a lack of scaling in our own design.

There were some avoidable issues, primarily due to a lack of scaling in our own design.

Online information for SQL Server is extensive.

I did not have the need to contact technical support for any reason.

Open Source database and OLAP solution was found to lack stability, and required the installation of many moving parts in order to have a complete stack. These services don't always work together well, and the various online communities would frequently blame the other for issues.

It's straightforward to install a new instance, but more complex if new features are added to an existing instance. Deployment of SQL code is efficient through Visual Studio database project development methodologies.

I have used both in-house, and vendor teams for implementation, both with very high levels of expertise into different aspects of database development.

It's very high as the data platform is business-critical.

I don’t concentrate on this issue, but rather the necessary features and the version required.

No other oprions were evaluated.

Make sure that you have an experienced database administrator to implement the infrastructure of the solution.

It is for supporting our custom applications. We have a number of custom applications that we use that have SQL embedded.

I am using the version before the latest one.

Its usability is very good. Its performance is satisfactory.

Their support could be better. There should be more visibility on the progress of the ticket, and their last line of support should be more knowledgeable. Other than that, we have nothing to complain about.

I have been using this solution for seven to eight years.

Their support could be better. Sometimes, you don't have much visibility of how your service request is progressing. There should be more visibility, and the last line of support should be more knowledgeable.

It was straightforward. It took two to three hours.

We have internal staff for its implementation. We have a team of about three or four people who are well-versed with SQL Server, and we have 30 to 40 users who use this solution.

You need to pay for the license. It most probably has per-core licensing.

I would recommend this solution to others. We are satisfied with the product in general. Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

We are using SQL Server for our financial application package.

One of the best features of SQL Server is the efficient retrieval of information.

We want to move to Azure, and the solution could be made better to make the process easier for the migration from on-premise to the cloud.

I have used SQL Server for approximately seven years.

SQL Server is stable. However, Microsoft products have a tendency to crash. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of stability.

The scalability of SQL Server is good.

The solution is straightforward to install.

The price of SQL Server could be better in the African market. The licensing model needs to be improved, it is confusing.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.