Happy SQL Server user since version 1.11 on OS/2 1.21
Updated February 27, 2016

Happy SQL Server user since version 1.11 on OS/2 1.21

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Microsoft SQL Server

SQL Server is being used across the entire organization in my previous company, along with Oracle. It's being used for our POS system, our website, and dozens of internal applications. It's very easy to install and configure so we can rapidly deploy it for new applications. It can also be considerably cheaper than Oracle.
  • It's very easy to automate the install so we have a website set up where an application team can go and within a few mouse clicks, they've requested a new VM with SQL Server installed on it. The VM itself can take a day or two to deployment because it's not fully automated yet, but SQL Server is automatically installed within an hour or two.
  • All the different wizards within SQL Server Management Studio make it relatively easy for non DBAs to perform many tasks, thus making self-service possible in many instances.
  • The Always On Availability Group feature makes both High Availability and Disaster Recovery much easier to plan and implement, especially with SQL Server 2014's multiple secondaries.
  • The Database Tuning Advisor can also help relative novices tune their queries for better performance, though it can still recommend way too many indexes be created.
  • SQL Server needs something to compare/compete with Oracle's RAC. When is that coming, Microsoft?
  • I don't care for the evolution of its pricing model. SQL Server used to be a no-brainer when compared to other products on price but that's not the case anymore.
  • We can implement projects on SQL Server much faster than we can on any other platform. That's partly due to how quickly we can deploy it but also how easy it is to administer.
  • We can also administer far more SQL Servers per DBA than any other database platform we have in house. Oracle tends to be particularly hands-on in our environment.
We select databases based on what vendor applications support, our in-house expertise, and price. SQL Server tends to win all of those comparisons.
I wouldn't move to SQL Server just because management or reviewers said to. I would go with the expertise you have in house. If you have a bunch of Oracle experts and no SQL Server experts, I'd go with Oracle. However, if you've got even one SQL Server expert, you should know that one SQL Server expert can probably handle a lot more SQL Servers than a single Oracle expert can.

Using Microsoft SQL Server

We use SQL Server for many, many different business functions at our company from POS to store design, to our website, to SharePoint, to market research, to recipe development, to the lawyers...
6 - You need to be detail oriented for production support and for the rollouts of new functionality from development to production but you also need to be interested in learning new things if you're going to be able to keep up with the changes and explain them to application teams, i.e. where new functionality is applicable to the work they're performing.
  • We run our POS system on SQL Server.
  • We run our website on SQL Server.
  • We run our SharePoint instances on SQL Server.
  • We plan to use in-memory tables to speed up our website soon.
We're constantly rolling out new applications on this platform.

Evaluating Microsoft SQL Server and Competitors

  • Price
  • Product Features
  • Product Usability
  • Product Reputation
  • Prior Experience with the Product
  • Existing Relationship with the Vendor
The SQL Server DBA team is very familiar with SQL Server so we have a lot of in-house experience with it. The Oracle DBA team has lots of experience with Oracle. So a lot of it is down to price, what the application teams are familiar with, and what the vendor application was developed on.
I wouldn't change anything.

Microsoft SQL Server Implementation

Make sure that all teams are fully represented in project meetings and planning. You'll need full involvement from networking, Windows, security, application teams, architects, and DBAs.
Yes - We have test, dev, cert, and prod environments, at least, and we prove things out before moving along to the next stage.
Change management was a big part of the implementation and was well-handled
  • Getting the various machines talking to each other because of the way the network has been partitioned and firewalled.
  • Network performance has also caused problems.

Microsoft SQL Server Support

We've had problems with support bouncing the incident around between groups or engineers and having to repeat information that was already presented.
Quick Resolution
Good followup
Knowledgeable team
Problems get solved
Kept well informed
Immediate help available
Support cares about my success
Quick Initial Response
Yes - A problem with SQL Server can have a huge monetary impact to the company so problems need to be resolved very quickly.
Yes - no, it was marked as won't fix

Using Microsoft SQL Server

It was the first to introduce features to make it easier for non-experts to get things done and it continues to lead the pack.
Like to use
Relatively simple
Easy to use
Technical support not required
Well integrated
Quick to learn
Feel confident using
  • Setting up AlwaysOn Availability groups is easy once the Windows Shared-nothing cluster is set up and working.
  • Using the Database Tuning Advisor is remarkably easy, even if interpreting the results properly requires a lot of knowledge.
  • Installing and configured MDW is quite easy, even if making use of the information it captures can require a lot of knowledge.
  • Configuring Merge Replication and keeping it working can be a handful.
  • Troubleshooting performance issues can be a real handful. It does require a lot of knowledge.