SQL Server Reviews

All our main DBs run on SQL.

Ability to convert to bigger DBs. It makes it easier to move or upgrade between branches.

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.

One to three years.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Have not used tech support.

Straightforward.

Plan ahead, and make sure do not pay for something you are not going to fully use.

Naming conventions are very very important. Make sure that your principle and mirror servers have the same disk space from the outset.

The way the product shows the execution plan and the facility to the developer and tests the SQL code.

The product is used in the core systems. It has been used since the beginning.

Better execution plans and better debugging.

Improved dependency of use of temporary tables to reach good performance in complex SQL.

I've used this solution for six years.

Sometimes the cross-database performance isn't the best.

No.

An eight out of 10.

I have used Oracle and I also use IBM DB2. All of them have pros and cons.

No.

Great product. Like any software, a good and prepared staff is the key to success.

There are lots of features including the analysis, database, and reporting, services. We use it mainly for reporting and analysis purposes.

The components I use are -

• SSAS 8.5/10
• SSIS 8/10
• SSRS 7/10

It has enhanced our real time decision making capabilities. It ensures we are up to date regarding our customers buying behaviour.

• SSRS should have more capabilities in terms of more ad hoc reporting
• SSAS multi-dimensional expression queries should be more simple

I've been using it for the last five and a half years.

With the latest version, it's very easy and intuitive.

We had a stability issue with the SSRS component when we deployed it into the production environment.

Not much of an issue to date.

Customer Service:

9/10.

Technical Support:

9/10.

We were using a solution from Informatica for ETL purpose, which was 8.5/10, but now we are doing it through SSIS, because it is easy to use and its cost.

The migration was, as always, a hard job, but we were able to migrate successfully.

We implemented it in-house.

We are pleased with the level of our ROI.

Indexes, CTE, aggregate functions, partitions, memory optimized tables, service broker, CLR (C# assemblies),...

Can't imagine work without sql database. I have complete warehouse logic inside stored procedure and it works like a charm. It is installed in 20 companies with different warehouse types.

There is always some place for improvements. Statistics could be better (2 table statistic), or dynamic partition function, but that is probably true with every other product.

I'm using this solution for 14 years.

Deployment is pretty fluent.

No.

Yes, mostly connected to bad code.

Customer Service: Very good.Technical Support: Very good.

Better user experience, very rich functionality and good reliability.

Pretty straightforward.

In house.

Impossible to say. We have about hundred SQL servers.

mySql, firebird, access, and probably some more.

With right use it could be part of almost any size and type of company.

We used SQL Server to store all of our lab data on the database. We had a front-end application that needed SQL in the background for archiving all the laboratory data.

The solution could improve by having better integration.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately three years.

The solution could be more stable.

We have approximately 200 users that use an application that uses the SQL Servers database.

The installation was straightforward. We did not have a large installation and it took a couple of weeks to complete.

Our IT department does the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There is an annual license and it is priced reasonably.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

On-premises

• Reliability
• Transaction management
• Its higher limits for storage and table management

Improvement to synchronous replication. Currently Microsoft's Always-On implementation of synchronous replication is not truly synchronous, as it counts the data to be written to the slave node, when it is written to the LDF file, not when it is committed to the actual database. This cause a problem when you are load balancing transactions across synchronous nodes.

I have been using it for over seven years, including 2008 (5/10) and 2012 (6/10) versions. We also have an early release of 2016 (8/10) which I have tested, but it's not in our production environment.

We deploy multiples of these servers now and it is all managed via PowerShell scripts and templates. It does not play nicely with hyper-threading, so we disable this now by default.

If there is flapping of Always-On database node, SQL Server will break the replication to the child nodes, and it requires manual intervention to restart replication.

Currently no as we use our own load balancer to enable us to scale to any level.

A strong knowledge of AD is a must as well as the ability to decipher MSFT blog posts.

We did it in-house.

Depending on how the product is used, it will take about 12 months.

Chose your database based on traffic type and desired functionality not on initial cost.

Take a look at the environment you plan to implement including the application and traffic model. Consider using Azure DB depending on your implementation requirements.

• SQL server has dynamic resource allocation feature that allows disk and memory usage scale to meet changing database demands. This facility provides better performance and simplifies software management.• SQL Server’s Graphical Query Analyzer not only helps building stored procedures and interactive queries but also graphically displays the steps performed by query processor to execute the query. • SQL Server’s Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) provides services like data warehousing, data marts and decision support to many medium sized companies.• Data Transformation Services is a powerful and flexible tool provided by SQL server, it simplifies importing and exporting data between and OLE-DB compatible databases.

• Installation and operation of SQL Server requires Internet Explorer (IE). • Reloading all the data in a database can cause potential data loss especially when the size of database is large. • No Cascading declarative referential integrity is available in SQL server.

Microsoft SQL Server is the tool of choice for many corporate environments because it is a commercial database server. Its core role in the commercial world is only to store data which is slightly different than other databases like MS Access. In addition to data storage capability, MS Access allows developing a full user interface for data entry and reports generation. Whereas SQL Server simply stores data. Significant numbers of companies are moving to SQL Server. When it comes to costs SQL will very often make a very good business case.

I use this solution as our data warehouse. 

We use the reports, data analysis, and for connecting our databases to multiple resources.

It's a flexible solution.

The installation process should be simplified.

The configuration could be easier.

I have been using SQL Server for a couple of months.

It's a stable solution. We have no issues with the stability.

We have 10 users in our organization who are using this solution.

We have a team made up of engineers, data analysts, and some developers to maintain this solution.

We have plans to increase your usage.

We have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I was using MySQL.

The installation is not easy, it could be easier.

It can take many hours to configure it.

I completed the installation myself.

It's a bit expensive.

The licensing is expensive.

I would recommend SQL Server to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.