We have a Windows Server environment.
This is a production system for secure document issuing in a government department.
SQL Server is the Microsoft-driven relational database management system. This system is used to store data as well as retrieve it when necessary; these functions can be supported by individual users or by multiple users within a larger network. The Microsoft SQL Server has warehousing options, quality and integration services, management tools that are simple to implement, as well as robust tools for development.
Looking at the more technical end of things, Microsoft SQL Server uses query languages such as T-SQL and ANSI SQL. Disaster recovery is one of the product's most prominent features, in addition to in-memory performance, scalability, and corporate business intelligence capabilities.
SQL Server is also known as Microsoft SQL Server, MSSQL, MS SQL.
Download the SQL Server Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021
Microsoft SQL Server is used by businesses in every industry, including Great Western Bank, Aviva, the Volvo Car Corporation, BMW, Samsung, Principality Building Society, Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario.
We have a Windows Server environment.
This is a production system for secure document issuing in a government department.
It helped reduce licensing costs and also running costs, as well as the learning curve.
The most valuable feature is replication because we had several replicas of the SQL Server database in different geographical locations.
I would like to have more replication scenarios.
Our correlation and relational databases are on Microsoft SQL Server.
The company uses two platforms: MySQL and Microsoft SQL Server. Some applications are on MySQL, and some applications are SQL Server.
I have pretty much worked all my life in Microsoft SQL Server.
I am in the process of creating a data strategy to consolidate multiple siloed data centers. Once my plan is finalized and approved, then we are going to execute it on the Microsoft platform.
I would like to see native plugins built for other platforms versus having to buy third-party plugins to tap into S3 buckets and AWS Cloud. Right now, it does not have those built-in plugins.
I know that they are building SQL Server for the Unix environment, which is in the beta version, and not out yet. This has been a long time wish for a lot of people. Once that is out, we'll be able to tell how diversified they have become in regards to other platforms.
It hasn't 100 percent on scalability and third-party plugins.
It is one of the most stable relational databases out there.
With the new versions and Azure, which is in the cloud, these do accommodate scalability. Until the 2014 version, the scalability wasn't there, but from the 2016 version and above, I think they have taken all these scalability features into consideration.
I have not used technical support for Microsoft with my current company. I have used them in the past. It depends on the tier of support that was purchased by the company as to the level of support that you receive.
Our company has probably been using this solution since it was released.
It is expensive, but you get what you pay for.
Since we are a cloud-based company, there is AWS pricing on top of the SQL Server pricing. The Enterprise Edition can typically sell from around $1000 dollars a month, which is not cheap. Then, there is an additional one-time Windows cost, based on the code, which can go anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 for the license.
From my perspective, the two vendors for this are Microsoft and Amazon (AWS).
They are working on making it better with every release, compared to Oracle Db2 and IBM.
I would definitely recommend SQL Server. It's not cheaper any more, like it used to be, but if you can afford it, then it's the best.
When I select a vendor, from a tool perspective, I make sure that they have full support available, have been in the market for awhile, and the solution/application is stable.
From an open source perspective, like MySQL, Aurora, and MongoDB, they have done a great job in making a robust database container.
Very pleasing and satisfying experience.
Every good tool has its own limitations.
But our organization provides great RAM, so we don't have any issue with its speed.
Go for it. Thumbs up.
The customer's MES system use it. The database system desgin as always on architecture.
Like Data guard in Oracle , always on contain double data and sync data by using transactions store in transaction log
It is easy to establish, and the license price is lower than that of Oracle.
Otherwise, our customer could can replace primary databases from Oracle into MSSQL AG
Base on windows cluster, the always on no needs complicated config process.
Just click and click following GUI interface.
table partition options, that is very useful to separate unnecessary cost.
For legacy data, we can do partition swith out and store into flat files or old tables.
When it necessary, we can switch in back.
In that case, cold , warm and hot data can be distributed into different database not only table partition located on different FGs .
Sometimes , when windows server suddently failed, the database still can be turn on when DB server started.
When do "sp_rename" or "table rebuild" , the cluster index or non-cluster index no needs to rebuild at same time
Customer always comes out many questions
I have no choice. our customer choose MS SQL
initial setup straightforward
Migration local database into cloud
No, I have to accepted it
subpartition is necessary
Besides that, SQL Server has become very expensive like Oracle. Its stability delivers performance and usability.
I would like a mature real-monitoring built in into SSMS, even a trace file analyzer.
It is widely used and we never have problems with it. It can handle a PC, and it can also handle huge data. It is fast and efficient. It is something unique that tracks reporting of records, personnel, finances and more. It also integrates well with everything, not just Microsoft tools.
It would be nice to search for specific value across multiple tables. This would save a lot of time.
I have never had a problem with the stability of the solution.
We have never really had a problem with the scalability of the solution.
I have never used technical support. It is the joke at the office that you cannot get help on the Microsoft website at all. Also, downloading anything from Microsoft is usually a nightmare. Honestly, I end up googling the problem and solving it myself. This is definitely something Microsoft needs to improve.
It is definitely important for someone looking at a new vendor to consider the support of the solution. In addition, the customer should really do their research and understand what their needs are, and make sure the new solution will solve those needs.
This is a departmental database engine which supports primarily localized solutions, data capture, and retrieval. However, with the exception of our aviation group, it is used for localized data lake or reporting solutions support.
It is cost effective with easy integration into the core MS Office tools. Hence user adoption is easy. Also, being a commodity product there is an abundance of cheap resources having experience with the toolkit, but very few senior or truly expert support personnel are available. Again because it is viewed as a commodity product even by developers, no serious time is spent on skills development with this toolkit.
Traditional DB toolkit closely integrated into Microsoft Office. This makes it truly easy to deploy in a light non-business critical environment.
The database is primarily used as back-end storage.
As an engineer working for multiple organisations, MS SQL has proven stability and operational power.
The additional tools, like SSIS and reporting services, make this solution useful.
Improvements to the indexing, columnstore indexing, and high availability groups are good improvements for future versions.
MS SQL is constantly improving their products. New options, such as managing with PowerShell, are good improvements.
I use SQL Server to optimize SQL queries and find the estimated cost of my queries.
I also use it to fine tune my procedures and functions.
No stability issues.
No scalability issues.
It is good.
I have been using SQL Server from the start.
It was straightforward.
It is good.
The setup cost is high, but it will return every penny.
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.
No issues with stability.
No issues with scalability.
Have not used tech support.
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.
In the current organisation there was no centralised data repository. Thus, statistics, reporting, and generic management information were not existent. With the introduction of SQL Server, we have consolidated relevant business data into one main repository. We built reporting structures and analytics on top of the repository to help analysts and teams manage themselves, as well as provide management information. From basic or incomplete reports and statistics, we moved to a full reporting data structure, providing a holistic view of the organisation's data.
Without any doubt the Integration Services and Analysis Services are the most widely used. These are the basis for data quality, data gathering, ETL process, as well as collation for the data warehouse, Cube-generation, and ad-hoc processes. The ease in which you may mold a process flow or even modularly add in new structures is something which is much needed in my job.
An area that definitely needs improvement is the Reporting Service side with the actual report server. Although to be fair, Microsoft has developed a new branch of tools for reporting; presumably that is why they have not improved the Reporting Service side. Nevertheless, if this was not the case then, yes, it would be an area for improvement. Another area would be the SQL Server process monitoring, which is quite basic and could sustain more information.
Overall, SQL Server 2014 is a very stable product and so far I cannot remember major issues that I have encountered. The only item which I can list is application failure during Integration Services debugging, when restarting a process flow. In a number of instances the solutions fails. I have not given this much thought and simply stop and start the debugging service rather than restarting.
So far, we have had no scalability issues. I have read about instances where people encounter issues online, but fortunately enough I have never encountered issues.
Yes, in the past I have worked with different versions of SQL server and have switched due to upgrades to utilise the latest version. I have also used Oracle, Tableau, SAP, and Jaspersoft.
The main reason I went for SQL Server is because it felt easier and more adaptive. Also, most of the products we use within the organisation are Microsoft-based, so that provided an extra advantage over the rest.
Not too complex. We had spent a number of months on the design and planning stages, deciding how we would go about the setup, security, and accessibility aspects, so that when it came time for the actual setup, the process looked pretty straightforward. Don't get me wrong, it still took a number of days to finalise, but we had a concrete plan of action, the steps needed, and the work was delegated accordingly.
My advice is quite straightforward. If you know the number of users who really and truly need access to the Server then it is a no-brainer. If you do not know, then get the basic package and minimum licenses and start from there. Needless to say, users can develop/use data structures outside and then deploy onto the Server.
Within the current organisation, we did not look at other options. I was pretty confident that the product would do the job, based on my previous experience with similar products. One key factor which pushed us to choose SQL Server was the cost of the product versus the amount of work to develop/maintain.
I rate it eight out of 10. It is quite a good product and has improved dramatically. Like all products, it has bugs here and there and some areas still need improvement.
I have been using the solution for the past two and half years, however, I have worked with older versions of SQL Server (2012, 2008, 2005). The solution is quite powerful and versatile and I have not yet used all the areas/modules of the solution. It is not always easy to utilise all the available modules for the solution, especially if your work is focused solely on a particular area. Nonetheless, I try to use different areas for side projects.
Plan thoroughly before, and once implemented go through the structure regularly and remodel accordingly. When planning, go through all the various sections, resources, accessibility, security etc.
Initially as a post-transactional database, but now it's mainly a transactional database and for Analysis Services.
It's a very capable, efficient, price-performant OLAP server on which we can build our solutions.
Analysis Services, because we are an independent software vendor in the business-intelligence area.
The web interface and the command line interface could be better so we could manage and build some things around an API. If we could build our own solution, our own interface, and then manage the solution through that open API, that would be better.
With the new, big releases, there's quite a lot of work that we have to do. From 2005 to 2008, and then from 2012 to 2016. But, otherwise, it's quite stable. It's nice.
Even for us, it's quite okay. For the type of customers we have now, it's okay. But, for a big amount of data, when we are speaking about IoT Segments, and Big Data projects, there are performance issues.
If there wasn't Stack Overflow, that would be a problem. But luckily there are also other resources on the web which we can use to help ourselves. Just depending on Microsoft support it would not be so great.
We used PostgreSQL, and we also used some other OLAP servers.
It's more and more complex. The 2005 version was very nice and neat, but now it's more and more complicated.
The price has been going higher and higher. The market is quite price sensitive.
At that time there was also Sybase, Oracle, MySQL. That's at the time those databases were up.
It's good if you need OLAP services.
I give it a seven out of 10 overall, because of the things mentioned: First is that during the version upgrades, sometimes things are complicated. The second thing is the support is not so... without an open-source community it would not be so good. Third is the pricing, because it's changing, sometimes it's confusing.
Implementing solutions for controllers and project managers on their financial data for 10 years, and now using the Power BI Microsoft solution.
Implementing a unified, reliable database is one of the main improvements of departments whose business is to make decisions according their aggregated data. SQL Server, with the services it offers, has the full capability to manage this goal.
SSAS is the most interesting feature to organize the data and let the users play with it.
The reporting services of the solution (SSRS and now Power BI) are the less valuable items of the SQL Server suite.
I also teach in a university. My students admit that SQL Server is quite easy to install and work with if you are a total beginner (compared with others).
I am not sure, as we have been working with it from the start. Comparing with other database management systems that I tried in other companies, SQL Server is quite easy to install, configure, and maintain. It is also quite reliable in cluster configurations and has helped me to reduce downtime and improve SLAs. If backups and alerts are configured properly, I can also rely on my restoration plan saving my butt more than once.
Always On is my favorite feature. I do like availability groups and cannot imagine how I lived with them before.
Microsoft tries to release new features with every version, but I cannot say that they are killer features. Usually these are just "nice to have" stuff. However, SQL Server works and it works just fine. It is really reliable if you don't shoot your own leg. All the basic functionality is 100% bulletproof.
I like it the way it is, though I would appreciate a dark theme for SQL Server Management Studio and ability to add databases with TDE enabled into availability groups.
I am aware of Connect and Trello pages, and there are a lot of good ideas from other people, most of them are useful only in some very rare scenarios. There are interesting suggestions present, and Microsoft should pay more attention.
Over the years, there was one service pack and two cumulative updates that were recalled as problematic ones, but otherwise it is very stable system.
Unfortunately, SQL Server cannot be scaled out so easily as some NoSQL solutions. There are some options that may allow it to work with quite enormous workloads. For example, try to google how Stack Overflow is built (yes, it works with SQL Server). They have quite an interesting architecture.
It depends. The shear number of support specialists is huge. You can get a freshman or a seasoned veteran. Usually, it is tolerable but it might take a while to solve a problem. In my experience, 50% of all problems can be resolved by installation of the latest patch. In 25% of times, it is your own stupidity. The 25% that left are real bugs, exotic configurations, and rocket science-level problems with a real high-load and very specific code and environments.
It depends how many features you want to implement. Basic stuff is very easy to install, but if you want to implement all the features or deploy a high-load or a clustered environment, it might be tricky. That is why you need a good architect and skilled DBA for something really complicated.
I have seen everything. It always depends on people skills. To get full performance from the SQL Server you need a well prepared environment and hard team work.
This is a downside of enterprise Microsoft products. Currently, almost all of my machines are in Azure and I think it is the best way of licensing now (VM+software).
Though I do like the SQL Server, I must say it is very hard to find a good DBA nowadays and having a DBMS without a DBA is like having a car without a driver and skills to drive it yourself. Before choosing or switching to this DMBS, check what kind of workforce is available in your area.
You may consider Azure SQL Database as a simple alternative, but I would advise it only for small workloads though.
It allows me to obtain access to data that I would not otherwise obtain access to from different programs. It has helped pull statistics and data, then put it into a report form to do some Power BI on it. This really helps people above me to view what we are doing, how we are doing it, and how to improve it.
Overall, it just makes your job simpler.
It is a simple query language. It is consistent across all versions. If you start with an older version, move to the newer version. The same code will still work.
It can go easily on a virtual machine and be accommodated by a virtual machine easily. That is a plus, as not all databases can handle that. It also will do clustering, so you can have two database servers looking at the same data simultaneously.
You can always access the data. You could have an offsite and an onsite, and if the onsite goes down, the offsite picks it up. I like that flexibility to provide continuing operations.
Right now, the tool you use to query the system updates every month. It pesters you to update the Client every month when there is nothing new that you really need to add, but it is constantly pestering you. I do not care for it.
I have no problems with stability at all, even when they are clustered.
Scalability depends on the version. I have to know ahead of time what version I need, but that is typical of all database software. However, as long as I build it correctly, it works great.
I have not had support for the SQL Server product.
This is Microsoft, so you just buy a ticket and they will just work with you until it is fixed. However, I have not had any issues where I needed to contact them.
We previously used MySQL, because it is a free product. It was just hard to operate, do backups, and make automated. Also, it was not scalable.
Initial setup is real simple. Just install it. Though, I recommend for new users to at least look online for training or a manual.
It has the easiest licensing.
We are a Microsoft shop, so we use Active Directory. That integrates well with this product, but we did look at Oracle. We also looked at IBM. This was the best price point for us for what we were getting.
We use it
Ease of use.
The free version is cumbersome to use and maintain. But $5000 for a licence is more expense than the benefit I would get from a licensed version.
No stability issues.
We are capturing 1 million calls per month. The free version can’t scale this much data.
Never used. Google is sufficient.
Postgre has a weird syntax and it is slower than MS SQL. The command line interpeter makes it complex to learn.
MS SQL is the easiest of the three I tried.
A licence might be worth the price to simplify management and speed up searches.
There was an online system in which we had about 2500 requests to the DB per second. Every request had a completion window of one second to process and retrieve data. Before my arrival, the numbers were 1000 requests per second and two, and sometimes, three to five seconds spent per request.
After switching to SQL Server, and AlwaysOn, and Snapshot, and tinkering, and configuring and tinkering, the handling capacity we measured increased to about 5000 requests per second, while the time decreased to 0.5 seconds per request.
The AlwaysOn high-availability feature is the most valuable feature of SQL Server to us. This is because of the relative ease of the configuration, rather than configuring for OLTP-OLAP distinction.
As a software developer, it can be hard to do something in Oracle that is SQL Server specific, and vice-versa, sometimes.
Improvements must not be stopped and must not end. When business needs arrive, then the improvements follow. For example, 15-20 years ago, MySQL did not have built-in Stored Procedure support; there was no business need for MySQL to have stored procedures built-in.
One stability issue I encountered was the deadlocking between calls to the same resources (tables, etc.). That was solved by row versioning. (We were shooting ourselves in the feet).
No scalability issues.
I have never had the need to reach out to the vendor.
Yes I did use another solution previously. The switch was mainly for the performance. Secondly, it was for the technology compatibility.
It was very straightforward. There was no complexity which I couldn’t handle.
I’m not a "product" fan. I try to use "the" product which will comply smoothly with the software I’m working on.
I’ve been working on Microsoft SQL Server since 2005, and currently I’m using SQL Server 2014 in my development environment and SQL Server 2012 in the production environment.
Everything is valuable. It is a relational database system which is critical for storing reporting data or any data that is highly relate-able. Plus your data is one of the most important assets in your company. Might as well have a good system to protect it.
In a manufacturing system, storing test data in an Excel file has limitations in how much data can be stored at one time and how many people can manipulate the data at one time. Storing it in SQL Server allows you to store as much data as you have disk space for. It can be viewed and modified by multiple people at one time.
Setting up some of the more complex systems could be simpler. Things like service broker can be tricky to set up for the inexperienced.
Stability seems very good. I have not seen any issues with this.
I have not run into scalability issues. It feels very scalable.
I have not needed to contact technical support for this product
I did not use a previous solution. I have heard of other companies using Microsoft Access or Excel for similar problems. However, after hearing the headaches they have, I would not recommend those for large scale projects.
The initial setup was straightforward, but configuration post-install can be complex. Complexity comes from attempting to optimize it and implementing some of the new features that come in new versions.
We implemented it entirely in-house.
Pricing and licensing is based on a per core and/or per-processor license. Try to keep these low, but keep it above four. (Four is the minimum number of cores.) If you are working mostly with OLTP, make sure your single thread CPU speeds are high.
We did not evaluate other options. The other options lacked support, lacked performance, or were too expensive.
If you don't have a DBA on site, hiring a consultant is recommended to help get things setup and configured. This will reduce headaches down the line.
We design and implement DW solutions with SS 2016 Dev Ed tools. This solution has given us high levels of productivity, which has allowed us to use an Agile approach to the design and implementation of DW solutions for our customers, and this Agile approach has in turn given us a competitive advantage in our market.
We have also started exploring the use of Microsoft R Client, MS R Services and MS R Server with SQL Server 2016 Dev Ed, which are part of the hosted Data Science package.
We are also looking forward the inclusion of Python support in SQL Server 2017 for said hosted Data Science package.
We are very interested in complementing DW solutions with Data Science and Machine Learning solutions, which could be a major plus for our existing DW customers, even though all hosted data science tools are only available in Enterprise Ed (for our customers), which again presents the same limiting factor (budget) already mentioned.
Having said that, we see that the potential that the hosted Data Science tools offer to some of our customers is large enough to be explored and considered on a case by case basis, with proper ROI analysis.
We do not have much to complain about SS 2016 Dev Ed in itself, we do have some complaints regarding licensing for SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Ed. In an emerging market like Argentina, it is very steep for our customers to pay U$S 28,000 or more on licensing for an instance of SS 2016 Enterprise Ed, and this poses a limiting factor to our growth.
We have been using SS 2016 Dev Ed for a few months so far, but have been using the previous version (SS 2014 Dev Ed) for more than two years.
The deployment tools for DW solutions in both 2014 and 2016 editions of SQL Server are part of the SQL Server Data Tools (SSDT) package. As SSDT is based on Visual Studio, this toolset has been very stable since its inception, both in terms of performance as well as in terms of functionality, so, deployment in 2016 is done in the same way as in 2014, which translates into no issues during deployment.
There were no stability issues.
There were no scalability issues, even though the Dev Ed does not offer the same level of performance and scalability that the equivalent Enterprise Ed offers.
Pertaining to the hosted Data Science package that we have been exploring, we have found an important increase in scalability when comparing the performance of a given solution running as hosted, and the same solution running on the same server with only client R tools.
This scalability advantage presents itself as an important reason to consider these tools as a viable solution to some of our DW customers.
As usual, MS offers a very good customer service. The amount of resources (self-study materials, online courses, tutorials) is huge, most of it is free.
Paid customer service is also very good.Technical Support:
Paid tech support is very good and efficient.
I have always used DW tools from Microsoft since SQL Server 2000.
If prior to the setup you do the proper training, there are no issues with setup, but the learning curve is wide and tall.
You could get started fast and sure if you stick to the many Wizards included with the tools, but the scope of said Wizards is limited.
We did not have deployment/implementation issues.
Since SS 2014 Dev Ed, MS is offering these tools free of charge, ROI mainly is focused around training investment. As I have said, we do the training in-house. ROI is around one year (12 months).
No issues with pricing and licensing for SS 2016 Dev Ed, as it is free of charge, as mentioned above, the thorny issue with pricing and licensing is with customers. We do our best to design DW solutions that can cover reqs from our customers within the capabilities of SS 2016 Standard Ed.
The cost-benefit ratio offered by Microsoft's DW solutions is, by a long shot, much more convenient for our customers (small and medium companies) than solutions from other vendors, hands down.
Consider the ROI (most training investment). If training is not in-house, only hire training from an official Microsoft Training Center in your region. Look for the best Training Center. Once you are done with the training, you can start taking customers for DW projects.
Most of SQL Server High Availability and Disaster Recovery solutions. They are easy to configure and maintain.
It provides the best performance and an easy way to monitor and troubleshoot problems.
Indexing, execution plans, and the SQL Server Management Studio performance.
Over seven years.
Complex design, easy configuration.
It is not very expensive and is suitable for an international company, like what I am working with. Free licenses are suitable for small companies, too.
Stable and easy to administrate.
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.
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.
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.
We used this to solve many complex problems.
Overall, trying to make over with Oracle, it can be improved in usage for high data migration companies of large scale.
I have experience using both the versions of SQL Server 2008, 2012 for more than two years.
Never had issues with stability, may be we were handling structured data well.
No, federal vs clusters approach explains you well that you can search for them.
Technical support rating would be around a seven and a half out of 10.
Setup is easy as what we want the database to do for our problems, compared to Oracle latest versions you need to spend more time on the initial setting up where these cannot go wrong with partitioning and indexing and it needs to be perfect.
Go for SQL and compare it with pricing and stability with other Microsoft products.
Definitely yes, with Oracle only if the needed situations cannot be met, mostly it covers better.
Best practices are the always a better choice for implementing the solution, hire a good expert and consult a better person with huge experience in architecting database systems for decades.
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.
An eight out of 10.
Great product. Like any software, a good and prepared staff is the key to success.
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.
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.
Probably the most useful feature of SQL Server is the ability to write and execute SQL on the fly.
In my experience with numerous coding languages and platforms, the SQL Server has the only programming language that allows the user to create, compile, and execute code in its own language.
To clarify, Java, .NET, PL/SQL and all other programming languages can dynamically create code, but not their own. In other words, Java can dynamically create SQL and execute it, but it cannot create Java and compile/execute.
Other great features are:
The most recent example is a data warehouse I've created for a client that enables us to use a "no-SQL" construct. This is only possible due to the dynamic SQL capability.
Our client collects data from dozens of sources with little to no commonality between them. With other platforms, this would require a table for each data source. However, because of the dynamic SQL, we have three tables that will accommodate ANY data source and it will never require us to change the data warehouse schema.
As a result, maintenance is virtually zero.
The only real improvement I've been looking for is finally being addressed by Microsoft.
Since SQL Server only ran on Windows, it was not competitive with other platforms which could run on Linux. This has recently been realized with the release of SQL Server for Linux. I currently have the pre-release version and I'm very impressed with what they have so far.
I have been using SQL Server for 17 years.
We did not encounter any issues with stability. None at all.
We did not encounter any issues with scalability. I have been able to create databases with billions of records with no degradation in performance. The partitioning has been a critical feature in enabling scalability.
In my experience with their support, I would rate it as outstanding. Their techs are professional and extremely helpful.
I typically use whatever database platform my client uses. However, whenever I am provided with the option to choose, I will always go with SQL Server.
In older versions, the setup was rather onerous. However, in the latest several releases, it has been extremely simple to install and set up.
Do the research and get the correct licensing model for your given purpose. A lot of people gravitate toward the Open Source databases because they don't have an upfront cost.
I find that what you don't pay upfront is what you have to invest in development and maintenance time on implementation. On far too many occasions, I have spent weeks writing code for features that SQL Server already has built in.
Either pay for the licensing cost or pay multiple times that for the labor involved in creating features, from scratch, that are native to products like SQL Server and Oracle.
Look very closely at the built-in features. For those features that you may need, estimate what it would take to replicate that same functionality on the "free" products.
The comparison is not on the licensing cost. It's on the features and the license cost versus the labor cost.
The most valuable feature is the easy installation. The user just needs to know how to read.
The SQL Server is helping us with the most feared corporate problem: Excel spreadsheets. The individual user can perform an integration and share the same results with others without the necessity to "share" the file. This reduces the data traffic on my company network.
Table partition and memory management. The performance could be better.
I have used it for more than 10 years.
The SQL Server has a big issue when some systems use Java as a primary software interface. This database loses the ability to manage memory, consequently locking the processes and losing performance in the execution of some robust queries.
Unfortunately, this database doesn't have a good concept of partition table. If you need to create monthly (Jan. to Dec.) partitions in one table, this action creates 12 different files for the same table. In others databases, this process is more transparent and capable to create partitions inside the same database.
The technical support team for the SQL Server is very friendly, if we compare with others commercial database products. Not only with Microsoft, but this database has more technical information published on the internet, books, and self-taught users to help.
I am still using other commercial solutions, but the price of this database is much less expensive than others. It is about four times less expensive.
The initial setup is one of the good things about MS SQL. It is very easy to do and start the development that you need to use after the installation.
In my point of view, the MS SQL is the most inexpensive database commercial solution. If do you need to build a consistent ERP for example, with a medium to hard capability, and don't have much budget to spend it, this is your solution.
Of course, I evaluated other options! I never choose the first option and I always try to look around to find competitive vendor options. I already know and have expertise with IBM/DB2 and Oracle solutions. For this new architecture, MS SQL was the best option at the moment for being a pilot project.
I suggest that you are first familiar with the bundle functions and plan some of the functions before starting the project. Find more information about the routines and how easy or hard it might be to start the development when you are thinking about cascade and constraints.
There are many, but I would have to say the two most important for me have been SQL Server Profiler -- to run traces and the ability to kill sessions in the enterprise manager tool. This command-based functionality lets you search and sort through processes actively running on the system to find your i/o hog – that is the user that is overloading the database either through a hung query or bad SQL code.
Once the hog user is found, the terminate or “kill” command can be used to shut down the hanging transaction. Similar to how clearing a vehicle crash on the interstate frees up waiting traffic, this kill command gives other users the ability to continue work as normal once the terminated transaction has been killed. This should be used sparingly though since it can cause waiting applications to corrupt data depending on how the application was written, but it is an often used research feature when a system starts to overload or show major signs of slowing.
In an effort to forego a data warehouse purchase, one company I worked with used a second SQL Server instance loaded to separate hardware as a reporting environment avoiding the need to hire additional employees to support a data warehouse. Essentially, the production database was snapshot and copied nightly to the reporting instance where it was restored through automated processes.
All employees who wrote queries and reports against the reporting instance utilized the same knowledge, skillset and tools already used in the OLTP production environment. While it didn’t have all the abilities of a true data warehouse, it was quickly implemented and well served for the desired purpose.
Multiple operating systems support should improve. The ongoing and newly marketed support for Linux and Unix environments running SQL Server is a big win for Microsoft, in my opinion.
Previous hold back related to open source environments stemmed from admins or management who would not run SQL Server for various reasons which many times boiled down to not liking Microsoft as a company.
Open source and Microsoft have conflicted in the open source world for years, but I think Microsoft is finally starting to turn that tide in an effort to compete with other vendors.
20 years. I began as a Microsoft Access database programmer in 1998 connecting early dynamic intranet websites to Access backend databases.
I later progressed to the SQL Server 2000 environment and have utilized SQL Server ever since then.
Issues encountered with stability were always correctable assuming we as a business were willing to spend money. The two major issues that come to mind were slowing of image files loading to disk using SQL Server and lack of proper indexing.
Images were archived for a 30 year legal period at a rate of at least 12 million per year and we eventually just hit a max depth of data where SQL Server had a hard time returning results. Shortening the physical file path structure of how deep SQL Server had to dig through the hard drive in addition to changing to new and improved disk technologies resolved the problem.
After this drive change occurred, a separate problem started where our database came to a crawl which is when we realized our regularly scheduled database index had not been updated to accommodate the new structure changes. A new index was put in place which is when SQL Server started humming along better than ever.
Microsoft makes life easy to expand your environment through clustering tools and after-hours operational scheduling features. SQL Server is easily suited for small businesses where it found huge popularity, but daily operations can sometimes be overlooked as the business grows causing intermittent operational kinks. I have seen a few small businesses determine that a slowing or overloaded SQL Server environment means they should look at more enterprise level databases, which is simply not the case.
Just like a Windows PC needs basic defragmentation maintenance to run effectively, SQL Server needs its own regular maintenance. There are many options available to improve the performance of SQL Server including the simple add-on clustering features which will balance excess load on the server.
In addition, database indexes need to either be created or re-indexed periodically. A database does not automatically know how an application was designed although it’s very good at trying to guess using built-in scheme mapping software. Creating indexes and related maintenance schedules specific to your environment can make a huge difference in how quickly SQL Server responds to data requests.
Disk partitions are another method for improvement. No matter how well SQL Server software is configured, it is limited by the hardware level. Underlying disk usage grows as data grows meaning the more data you add to the database results in the longer it will take for the database to find data on-disk. That’s when it’s time to either spread data across many independent disk sets or move to more expensive flash drives which save time by avoiding read & write disk operations.
These options, of course, require time, effort, and money, but they have been well worth the costs of doing business based on my experience.
I have only had to call Microsoft support 5 times in my nearly 20-year career, but they were extremely helpful. The one frustrating experience was 10 years ago when I worked over the phone 8 hours straight with 3 separate techs from the India location. Keep in mind, these were days pre-remote support meaning I had to verbally translate every diagnostic error I was seeing on the screen and assume the tech was clear on the meaning. The techs I worked with were extremely nice and tried hard to help, but I reached my frustration level due to the verbal language barrier.
The senior tech, who I spent the most time working with, had an extremely thick accent and was hard to understand. I could tell he had hit a dead-end on his knowledge of the product so I finally asked to be transferred to a specialist in America. Once I found the right person in the US, my problem was resolved within an hour.
In hindsight, I knew the senior tech was lost at the 6-hour mark, so I should have spoken up then, but he never complained and kept trying different solutions, which is good on Microsoft’s part.
My team and I have tried many different technologies including MySQL (cheap but effective), Oracle (expensive and effective), PostgreSQL, and DB2. I never jumped on the PostgreSQL or DB2 train, but could not give you a specific reason why due to my limited knowledge of the products. It usually came down to lack of knowledge for available programmers in our area, meaning we would have to train new hires and take a lot of time getting them familiar with a new database structure. That defaulted us to either Oracle or SQL Server since MySQL was not used in production at the time due to limitations surrounding support.
Oracle owns MySQL these days and they, of course, would prefer you run full fledged Oracle database for support needs. Oracle’s supremely expensive licensing has normally pushed me and coworkers to Microsoft SQL Server although every organization I have worked with pays for some form of Oracle even though SQL Server is primarily touching end users.
I personally feel Oracle is a great database but also think Microsoft SQL Server can be configured to run just as well as Oracle in most cases. The problem I normally find is that many bloated applications run SQL Server where more streamlined (and many times less functional) applications run Oracle. For that reason primarily, Oracle has had a better reputation in the pre-Amazon world.
Creating a SQL Server instance using the pre-installed GUI setup screen available in either Visual Studio or Enterprise Manager can be very simple to create and maintain database “instances” making it a prime choice for small startup businesses.
In addition, Microsoft has added loads of training videos on their website along with step-by-step instructions for creating and maintaining servers. The user can get as complex as desired in SQL Server by learning all the behind-the-scenes commands the GUI is using. You will start researching commands quickly once the first SQL Server error occurs and the GUI doesn’t know how to resolve it.
For the most part, what you see is what you get with Microsoft’s licensing website. I sat through many hours of negotiations with many database and application vendors. Some application vendors try negotiating a better deal based on their licensed volume, but only twice have I seen Microsoft cater to lower licensing and it was because they wanted to make long-term wins with the customer knowing they had the possibility of gaining market share.
That said, Microsoft is still usually cheaper than Oracle who will sometimes look cheaper to start with but add the possibility of higher long term rates. Asking for a discount can never hurt.
MySQL (now owned by Oracle) is sometimes used internally for dynamic website needs, but Oracle is the only competitor evaluated for SQL Server.
Start in the cloud if feasibly possible and if it makes sense for your business. I have mostly worked with organizations that still don’t trust the cloud for security and legal reasons, but Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are releasing promising products in the cloud that are leaps and bounds ahead of processing power for local servers assuming your organization is willing to pay what it takes. I have priced cloud services enough to know they’re expensive, but they could replace a lot of unknowns for growing businesses or those starting from scratch; mainly network security, redundancy and technical skillset of employees.
Cloud services have full-time employees focusing on those niches meaning you as an employer will have less headaches at night.
According to CNBC and Synergy Research Group as of this writing, Amazon AWS leads 33% of global cloud market share. That may sound like a small number, but it’s by far the majority of customers since Amazon’s AWS cloud revenue is more than the next five providers combined. Two of those 5 providers are Microsoft and Google.
And for those of you new to the cloud, you do have the ability to run Microsoft products, including Microsoft SQL Server, in the AWS cloud.
I am a Senior Software Engineer. I've used SQL Server for most of the solutions that I worked with, from web crawlers to logistic platforms and medical devices.
Over 10 years.
Yes, I encountered issues only when using the Express editions during the development. SQL Server, generally speaking, is stable also in high transaction environments.
Yes, I encountered issues in the CPU intensive application, like web crawlers. It was difficult to reach the desired scalability through the fine tuning options available.
The support is good. The knowledge base is very good.
I have experience with Sybase SQL Anywhere .
I switched mainly because the SQL Server is widely deployed and known, for better XML support, and for better integration with .NET framework and its related technologies.
It was straightforward for most of the installation, thanks to the wizards.
I am not a direct purchaser, so I don’t know.
SAP/Sybase SQL Anywhere for the small footprint which makes it suitable for embedded solutions.
SAP/Sybase SQL Anywhere for the built-in synchronization technologies available.
Improve the built-in database replication technologies.
It’s easy to develop and learn for newbies, and community MVP’s are so powerful and qualified, so info is easily accessible.
SQL Server is our main RDBMS for SIS (Student Information System) and also our DWH, which are hosted on our SQL Server.
Version management, editor capabilities, CDC (change date capture), and some advanced analytic functions should be added; continuous integration solutions.
I’ve been developing with MS SQL Server for nearly 20 years, since Version 6.5.
Not in this version.
Yes, we did, with the 2008 version.
We have a yearly technical support agreement with a major partner. Consultant meetings are a requirement.
No. We’ve been using SQL Server for 17 years.
We’ve been using AlwaysOn availability groups for three years. It took a while to model the structure, but now it is stabilized, and safe with disaster recovery and failover configurations.
It was years ago, so it’s not relevant info anymore.
Database modeling and indexing best practices are so important. Do not defer to implement these practices. Before installation, planning different file groups for temp, data, and index files will help to gain performance and maintenance advantages.
The database engine within SQL Server 2014 is one of the most valuable components of the platform to me.
The engine provides a solid and efficient database backend for any relational database requirement, performance is strong and there are options such as table, index partitioning and columnstore indexes that enhance the scalability of the platform.
In addition to the database engine, I would also highlight the built-in integration services platform (SSIS) for ETL purposes as well as the Reporting and Analysis Services functionality (SSRS and SSAS respectively).
One of the key features that I would use regularly to support the delivery of a Data Warehouse solution would be the Master Data Services (MDS). This is an extendable Master Data Management platform that works very well out-of-the- box.
As an IT Services organization, our companies have used this product in dozens of customer deliveries for solutions such as ERP applications, Data and Analytics solutions, and more. We also use the product internally as the backend for some of our most important operational systems.
The user interface to the web frontend of MDS could be more intuitive and the Analysis Services platform has not evolved much in recent times, these are the two things that come to mind.
This specific version (2014), I have used for approximately three years. However, I use other versions of the software on a regular basis, such as 2012 and 2016.
There were no issues with stability.
There were no issues with scalability.
Microsoft has a solid support structure for the SQL Server platform and I’ve always been provided with a good service.
We used a combination of RDBMS platforms and we still do in addition to this solution.
The installation and configuration was very straightforward. The full setup typically takes less than one day.
The Enterprise license includes features that enrich the product experience as well as performance and scalability options. Choose this over the standard license where possible.
Install a trial version as soon as you can and give it a try.
There is improvement in the performances and stability.
SSIS needs improvement.
I think that it should be easier in managing SQL packages, especially when we have multiple environments. With Kerberos Authentication, we had different issues on this and sometimes, we needed Microsoft Support too. Thus, a better and an organized SQL package review is needed.
When using HA (high availability), we experienced some stability issues.
There were no scalability issues.
Technical support is the best, I would give them a 10/10 rating.
It’s okay as compared to the features that it has.
We evaluated the Oracle solution.
If you want stability, then choose the best.
The Microsoft SQL Server is a great and powerful data storage capable to provide many functionalities starts on free version until the power with BI resource and mirroring.
MS SQL is a recognized data tool, it provides many ways to help us organize data and process information.
MS SQL need to improve the big data functions and also own market share.
i didn't use it like admin, i don't know.
Oracle, some times i used others solutions, but working by compatibility.
according you need
Apart from the standard SQL database-related features, the 2012 version enables the AlwaysOn functionality which enables two or more SQL Servers that can be clustered, with heartbeat across geographic locations along with high availability failover and 99.9999% uptime.
We have deployed three instances of the SQL Server, i.e., two at the primary datacenter and one at the disaster recovery facility. The AlwaysOn feature has ensured 100% database availability, even when one of the servers is down without any performance issues for the end user.
The Always ON (High Availability) functionality is support only with the MS SQL enterprise edition. It would be beneficial to many if this feature were also made available in the Standard Edition.
I am using the SQL Server for more than 10 years and the 2012 version, I have been using since the last five years.
There were no stability issues. If the initial configuration is done correctly, there are no issues. If the other servers are connected at remote locations, then the connectivity performance plays a vital role and it should be 10-15 ms for best results.
There were no scalability issues.
We have received excellent support from Microsoft and the local partners.
In the earlier versions, we used log shipping to the other servers for the failover and replication requirements. With this version, all the servers are Active/Active and there is no issue related to the availability or failover.
The basic installation is simple, whereas rest of the clustering requires an expert skill level for the configuration and deployment.
When comparing the Standard Edition to the Enterprise, it is expensive but the performance and features meet with the ROI and TCO. Thus, overall, it minimizes the redundant servers, multiple backup copies, the risk of non-availability of the latest copy at the disaster recovery.
The latest 2016 version has many more new features and functionalities, if you have the Enterprise Level Agreement and subscription model, you can upgrade to the latest version.
The Always ON (High Availability) functionality is support only with the MS SQL enterprise edition. It will be beneficial to many, if this feature is available in Standard Edition.
Where to start?
Great range of admin tools (far outnumbers MYSQL) - I like the database tuning tools
Nice BI tools and integration ability.
Evolves quickly due to the monster support from MS
Integrates with the rest of MS products (this is a plus and a minus, of course)
Scalable - a few MBs up to petabytes.
High availability/failover clustering makes DR straightforward.
Own reporting services - if you can't report on it, it's hard to manage.
Problems include - is it an MS product? Then licensing can be a pain if they do an audit.
Also, with AWS's offerings becoming so easy to set up, scale, and work at great speed, MS SQL probably needs to up its game massively if they are ever going to keep up, let alone fully compete with Amazon's database suite.
SQL Server integration services tools
Data quality services tools
Master data services tools
SQL Server reporting services tools
Data partitioning (horizontal partitioning) tools
In-memory OLTP tables
We design and implement data warehouse solutions with SQL Server 2016 Developer Edition tools. This solution has:
Given us high levels of productivity
Allowed us to use an agile approach to the design and implementation of data warehouse solutions for our customers
Given us a competitive advantage in our market
We do not have much to complain about SQL Server 2016 Developer Edition in itself.
We do have some complaints regarding licensing. In an emerging market like Argentina, it is very steep for our customers to pay USD 28,000 or more on licensing for an instance of SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition. This poses a limiting factor to our growth.
We have been using SQL Server 2016 Developer Edition for a few months so far. We have been using the previous version (SQL Server 2014 Developer Edition) for more than two years.
We did not encounter any deployment issues.
We did not encounter any stability issues.
We did not encounter any scalability issues. This is the case even though the Developers Edition does not offer the same level of performance and scalability that the equivalent Enterprise Edition offers.
As usual, Microsoft offers very good customer service. The amount of resources (self-study materials, online courses, and tutorials) is huge and most of it is free. Paid customer service is also very good.Technical Support:
Paid technical support is very good and efficient.
I have used data warehouse tools from Microsoft since SQL Server 2000.
If you do the proper training prior to the setup, there will be no issues. However, the learning curve is wide and tall.
You could get started fast and sure if you stick to the many wizards included with the tools. However, the scope of those said wizards is limited.
We implemented with an in-house team only, with proper, prior training that was also done in-house.
Since SQL Server 2014 Developer Edition, Microsoft has been offering these tools free of charge. The ROI is mainly focused around training investment. We do the training in-house, so the ROI is around one year.
We have no issues with pricing and licensing for SQL Server 2016 Developer Edition, as it is free of charge. The thorny issue is with pricing and licensing with customers.
We do our best to design data warehouse solutions that can cover requirements from our customers within the capabilities of SQL Server 2016 Standard Edition.
The cost-benefit ratio offered by Microsoft's data warehouse solutions is, by a long shot, much more convenient for our customers, small and medium sized companies, than solutions from other vendors.
My advice is focused on companies that develop and offer data warehouse solutions for customers that use SQL Server. Consider the ROI, which is mostly training investment (for the Developer Edition). If training is not done in-house, only hire training from an official Microsoft training center in your region. Look for the best training center. Once you are done with the training, you can start taking customers for data warehouse projects.
I would rate MS SQL Server 4/5 for its ease of administration,rich features, Nice GUI support for all its complex features.
Valuable features include:
1.Management Studio (Nice GUI support for all its complex features.)
2.Hot add CPU
3.Configure Dynamic memory also configure MIN and MAX memory.( Very flexible)
4.Replication ( Very Simple).
5.Clustering (The best high availability feature available among all
its compitators due to its robustness and scalability).
6.SSIS ( Very rich).
7.In memory OLTP in SQL Server 2012
8.Always On (High Availability) in SQL Server 2012
9.SQL Server Profiler
The MSBI features SSAS, SSIS as well as SSRS together has enabled us to build a data warehouse for our Enterprise with Business Intelligence reports around the data. We have fully exploited its all complex features like Slowly Changing Dimensions in SSIS etc.
I am not sure if these areas have been taken care in SQL 2012 but areas for improvement include:
1.In SQL 2008 ,Data encryption is not a fully mature feature.Encryption works fine for individual rows.For handling a batch a for loop has to be written.This is not straight forward.
2.Horizontal partitioning is not a fully mature feature.In horizontal partitioning Partition key has to be part of primary key.This becomes difficult to implement in already existing database.
No not at all.
Good. We have had only a few issues.
We were a Microsoft shop (.NET, Share point etc) primarily, hence using MS SQL Server 2008.
It was straightforward.
We implemented through in-house.
1. Find out the right licensing mode you require (Comes with different options CAL/Server and # of CPUs and Virtualisation).
2. Use the Enterprise lincencing or Standard edition or Web according to your need.
3.Make use of SQL Server Clustering or LOg Shipping high availability solution, the best you can find.
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.Technical Support:
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.
SQL Server Migration Assistant for Access (AccessToSQL).
We migrated loads of access database into large scale SQL server.
Access validation rules and expressions need improvement while converting into SQL Server.
I've been using it for 10 years, and was using previously older versions and now I'm on the latest one.
We just needed to upgrade Windows.
It was average.
It was average.
I previously used Oracle 11G, I switched because of less hardware resources were needed to run heavy software.
It's straightforward to do providing you've read the manual.
We did it in-house.
It's beneficial in terms of what the business gains from it.
It's average to purchase.
We also looked at Oracle 11G.
First look into scalability issues before adopting the right product.
It's a solution that's always on.
It has High Availability, therefore provides failover if a node becomes unavailable.
It allows for performance tuning to maximize performance. With the enhancements to the tuning wizard indexes are added to the needs of the system structure and use. I find this helps prevent locking of the system.
It cuts down on the variable speed of queries, and individual queries can be tuned by optimizing the database server.
The speed is inconsistent.
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.
The ability to browse table structures and re-design it easily.
It improved the efficiency in giving service to clients, and allowed to me make all kinds of important reports easily.
The compiler should be much more precise and give you more information about the error.
I've used it for two and a half years.
No issues encountered.
Running long and complicated queries could make the software crash. You should run them part by part instead (i.e. with stored procedures).
No issues encountered.
I haven't had to contact them.Technical Support:
They give quick, and helpful, responses. About 9/10.
This was the solution I've used.
It's pretty straightforward, and usually everything goes smoothly. Everything was user-friendly and took me a minimum amount of time to understand how everything works.
We did it in-house.
The price is pretty high, buy it's worth getting the license.
No other options were evaluated.
Personally, I love Microsoft products and I’m pleased with this one as well. I would advise you to get it.
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 -
It has enhanced our real time decision making capabilities. It ensures we are up to date regarding our customers buying behaviour.
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.
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.
The majority of the software frameworks utilised by companies I have supported use SQL Server by Microsoft as the application's database management system. It always been reliable and consistent providing tremendous functionality for many years.
The user interface can be improved through the adoption of the intuitive interaction design of the MS Office 2013 applications.
I previously used MongoDB before the stability of innovative products still remains questionable in both theory and practice.
SQL Server and SQL Server Integration Services – Informative Article
SQL Server and SQL Server Integration Services: Discussed and Explained
The concept of Relational Database Management System when brought forward by Microsoft was known as SQL Server. Architecture of SQL is a division where all the components combine and work, both; independently and together. This is done in order to process the services offered, in a defined way. This allows SQL Server to work smoothly.
The external SQL Server interface is developed by the Protocol Layer. All the operations conducted on the server are transmitted through a defined format known as the Tabular Data Stream (TDS). Basically, this is an Application Layer Protocol that helps to transfer data between the client and server (database).
Some other points that in a combination help make SQL an essential database management system for users include the following:
It is a collection of a variety of tables with all sorts of types including; primary types – decimal, integer, float, etc., varchar, and more.
Concurrency and locking:
The server permits users to make use of the SQL database concurrently by multiple types of clients. So it is required to take control of the simultaneous database access to the shared data. The two concurrency control modes provided are; pessimistic and optimistic.
SQL uses lock mechanism, in the pessimistic mode of concurrency control and they can be further classified as; shared & Exclusive Locks.
Data in SQL Server is retrieved via querying it and this query procedure is executed by the SQL Server variant; T-SQL. The order of steps in the procedure of querying for essentials to recall the data requested for is decided by the Query Processor.
This part of SQL Server plays a critical role in reducing the Disc I/O while it buffers the pages into RAM. One can store up to 8 KB of pages in the buffered memory and this collection of all buffered pages is known as the Buffer Cache.
SQL Server and Its Versions
The entire database held by SQL Server is available as Primary (*.mdf) and Secondary (*.ndf) Database respectively. While an LDF file’s role is to hold the entire log details of the transactions carried out on any of the database.
Amongst all the versions of SQL Server; 2005, 2008 R2, 2014, and others; 2000 was the first version to be adding multiple performance measures to the Server. And out of all the measures introduced by SQL Server version 2000, SQL Server Integration Services or SSIS was the most vital one.
Detailing Of SQL Server and SQL Server Integration Services Security
The SSIS Security of SQL Server consist of a variety of layers offering a completely sound environ for the services. These layers constitute of the below mentioned components:
When used in a combination for applying security measures, these components act as a defensive shield to the packages of SQL Server.
In order to interpret the concept of SQL Server and SQL Server Integration Services security, understanding the platform of SSIS is of primary importance. The forthcoming segment of this article discusses about the same as well as the attributes offered by it in SQL Server environ.
Understanding the SSIS Concept of Security
The SSIS or SQL Server Integration Services is a vital component that is associated to the Server. Normally used for carrying out a wide number and variety of operations related to data migration this platform has been structured considering the two mentioned elements:
The following functions are allowed to be performed at a higher level:
This was an overview of the SSIS platform therefore, proceeding to the concept of SSIS security measures is feasible now.
The Concept of SSIS Security
Always using trusted mediums for launching the packages is one of the most important concepts of the SSIS Security measure. And prior to that, you must necessarily identity the source of package before opening it, which can be done by allotting certificates to packages.
The Perks of It: Unauthorized access to the server’s sensitive data can be kept under control via allotting identity features to a package. Also, it guarantees control on the SQL Server package configuration.
Even the logs, checkpoint files, and the configurations can be protected as well.
The Package Information displayed via SSMS (SQL Server Management Studio) Integration Services is offered integrity and protection by the medium of this platform.
A better understanding about the functional measures and features of the SSIS Security can be referred in the upcoming sections below.
TIP: In case the file system is used for package storing, make sure that file or folders containing the packages are secure completely.
Conclusion: Security is a matter of concern regardless of the platform being discussed about. And understanding the detailed aspects of the SSIS Security measure helps prevent the SQL Server packages from unofficial access.
My objectives are to provide a baseline to determine database growth pattern to ensure capacity planning, stability, bottlenecks, etc., etc.
Microsoft’s flagship database engine, SQL Server, keeps getting better with every release. The SQL Server 2014 platform is the best-ever SQL Server release, and is packed full of features for organizations of all sizes.
Every organization has different requirements for data. Vendors might specify a particular product or platform for their software. In-house development staff might be geared towards one platform over others. Management might have their preferences. SQL Server might not be right for all shops out there, but I can state that it provides the same scalability, flexibility, and raw power of other DBMS platforms on the market, and does it with the easiest to manage suite of features that I encounter. I enjoy this product and the technical community that has grown up around this product so much that I have dedicated this portion of my career to the mastery of SQL Server as a database and architecture consultant. SQL Server 2014 continues the platform’s evolution towards the future, and I continue to stand by it.
The core database engine is one of the easiest portions of the product to administer via the included SQL Server Management Studio tool. Quite a few of the SQL Server installations that I encounter in the wild are installed by non-DBAs who just click through the installation wizard and stand up their required SQL Server instances. This simplicity is one of the product’s double-edged swords, because even though it is trivial to install, non-DBAs tend to skip the best practices around infrastructure architecture, installation, post-installation configuration, and ongoing management that helps the product to really shine.
The Enterprise edition contains an updated and enhanced feature called AlwaysOn, and it allows for the simple setup of highly available databases so that the data is available if a server fails. It also plays a double role in allowing for the setup of disaster recovery database servers so that if an entire datacenter fails, applications can continue to work with only a minor interruption in service (usually measured in seconds). Failover and failback are trivial, and a single interface is all that is required to manage the entire setup. I love this feature, and as my clients are starting to migrate to SQL Server 2012 and SQL Server 2014, see a tremendous increase in AlwaysOn adoption at the moment.
The other huge feature is with In-Memory OLTP, or codename Hekaton. It is in-memory extensions that allow an application to begin to use memory to dramatically improve the performance of an application with only minor modifications to the app code.
Other features included in the core engine and licenses editions of the production include:
SQL Server also now has the ability to move data into and out of the public cloud with ease through backing up to Microsoft’s Azure platform.
If you currently have SQL Servers in your organization, run – don’t walk – to SQL Server 2014. If you have some of the other database platforms on the market, consider migrating to SQL Server so you can reduce licensing costs, improve scalability while reducing complexity, and increase the number of database that a single DBA can individually manage.
Pros: Tremendous scalability. Easy to use and manage. Blur High Availability and Disaster Recovery with AlwaysOn Database Availability Groups. Business intelligence tools increases business insight into data.
Cons: The licensing has persisted the per-core model, and as a result the cost for the platform stays higher than expected. Adding software assurance, which I consider a must for virtualizing SQL Server, also drives up the cost.
SQL Server Microsoft
Microsoft itself is the name of trustworthiness, solid promise, reliability, steadfastness, loyalty and commitment. Among its ranges of products which are mostly open source and freely available for consumers, Microsoft SQL server is useful for the “Great Data Storage” tool. The latest version of MS SQL server is 2012 which incorporates many enhanced features but previous versions like 2003 and 2008 also meet the needs to store data and analytics of data during structuring query.
Microsoft SQL server 2012 emerged in three different versions Standard, Enterprise and Business edition. The basic standard version can be used by smaller companies' databases and include many vivacious features to manage the data integration. Some features are not available but still it meet the needs of consumers and data handlers. Other two editions have more features like high end data integration, large data analysis, query optimization and other data encapsulation.
It can also integrate to Apache Hadoop e.g. running on different remote machines, capturing queries and send them to SQL server for further investigation. It can manage both relational and non relational data through its built in data-connectors. Database creation is trouble-free along with transportation of database from one platform to another much more uncomplicated.
The best feature in my point of view in its Enterprise and business intelligence edition builds on Power view, a web service BI toolkit that can be attached to the share point. So one can pull the data from any other source from the network and throw in Power View to view them (it mainly includes reports).
As 2012 edition has a data-connector to have a connection with other data centers but it is still available for the windows environment. It can only be enforced in that hardware configuration which suits windows environment.