SQL Server Reviews

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

I am using the version before the latest one.

Its usability is very good. Its performance is satisfactory.

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

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

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

It was straightforward. It took two to three hours.

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

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

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

We use the solution on FastAutomate, our core product, to store the aggregated data from different nodes. It resides on the server that's handling the agents. We also use it for different organizations for development. Therefore, we use it for development mainly.

Overall, we've been satisfied with the capabilities of the product.

The solution is stable. It works without issue - to the point you rarely need any technical support at all.

The scalability is very good.

It's got an easy initial setup.

The remote access aspect needs to be improved in terms of security. Right now, it's a little bit hard. 

Also, they need to work on the user interface, as it's a little bit old. They need to improve it a little bit. 

The pricing could be lowered a bit.

We've used the solution for a while. 

Its stability has been good. The solution performs well and is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so. 

Techni al support is good. That said, it's hard to judge as you don't need support on SQL Server. It's working without trouble or issues. Therefore, it's rare to seek support for SQL Server. You rarely have to deal with them.

I've also used SQL Azure.

The recommendation is based on the use case. It depends on what use case the customer will need. If they don't have the capacity to manage their own Server, I would recommend Azure, as it's managed. Therefore, you don't have to worry about the management and administration.

The main difference between the two is, in some data types it is not available on SQL Azure while it's available on SQL Server or vice versa. There's a version of SQL Server with a little bit of limited functionality. That said, the difference is not huge. You can go back and forth between them if you want.

The initial setup is very easy. It's even easier than before, in fact. A company shouldn't have any problems with the implementation. 

The price could be less.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. If the price was a bit less or the remote access was better, I would rate it tighter.

In general, I've been happy with the product.

I have SQL Server running in an on-premise environment, but we are testing it out on the cloud. We are trying out using APIs to access a database. SQL Server creates a lot of opportunities for us. While some of the larger companies have Oracle, SQL Server is more common in Peru. I'm responsible for administration and implementation, including configuration and data replication.

Our biggest problem with SQL Server is latency. The communication between the cloud and the on-premises environment is slow. The data needs to be encrypted for security, and you have to exchange data certificates between environments. You can adjust the configuration to improve performance, but it would be nice if SQL Server had some templates to resolve problems.

I have been working with SQL Server for 10 years. 

I worked on Oracle Database for four years. In the last year, I have been working with various cloud databases, including Cosmos DB and DynamoDB in AWS and Azure.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10. SQL Server is an inexpensive solution. I recommend it if the project isn't sensitive. SQL is similar to Oracle and integrates well with tools in the cloud environment. The difference is that Oracle is for data solutions where there is replication and moderation.

We are an independent software vendor and users of this product. I'm a company founder. 

The most valuable feature for me is that the database engine is always on.

The solution is lacking a compound index for comparing values as you find in PostgreSQL. SQL Server doesn't support that feature so we need to build binary indexes to be able to compare those compound values. I'd also like to see AI capabilities. Oracle has a cloud solution which maintains its own indexes. If you buy a service from Oracle's cloud system, it keeps track of the queries that you have made to the database and it automatically implements its own indexes. It's such a good optimized database and I'd like to see an SQL Server that maintains its own indexes with AI capability. 

I have an issue with memory support: If you create a table and a third procedure followed by an additional procedure using that third procedure, and then wish to alter the original table with the two dependent objects, you have to drop those third procedures and alter the table and recreate dependencies. Those dependencies make it impossible to work in an online environment. If there's a problem, for example, in your implementation and you have to modify a production system, for example, it can't be done. SQL Server generates DLL files in this instance and you can't change DLLs of a running program. It should be easy for them to solve. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

I have the issue of memory support but the solution is stable. 

For Turkey, the licensing costs are too high. Previously, independent software vendors like us would buy the license from Microsoft and resell to our customers.
For vendors it was half the retail price, but that's no longer possible. Sometimes enterprise companies buying in bulk can get licenses at a better price, but we don't have that and it's impractical for us to sell this solution. 

The solution doesn't have too many surprises and is easy to understand. It's all dependent on the architecture and implementation. Newer products use code-first solutions and I'm not sure people will continue to go down the SQL path. If I were starting my project now, I would have chosen another database. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

SQL Server has helped us make better decisions through the queries that we have built.

SQL Server's most valuable features are that it is a large number of community resources to help you out. that's one, and then it is quite powerful.

SQL Server backups could be better.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately three years.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

I have found SQL Server to be scalable.

The solution is suitable for all-sized businesses.

The technical support from SQL Server is quite good.

I was satisfied with the implementation of the solution.

The price of SQL Server is great. In my company, SQL Server is part of the Microsoft Suite, we don't have to pay for any additional license costs, it's quite cost-effective for us.

My advice to others is SQL Server is a good tool to work with and there are a lot of community resources available to help you out in case you are stuck anywhere.

I rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

We're using SQL Server for database work.

What I find most valuable in SQL Server is that it's user-friendly.

The product needs improvement in its UX design. A newer interface is what I'd like to see in the next release of SQL Server.

I've been working with SQL Server for two years.

SQL Server is a stable system.

SQL Server is a scalable system.

I'm satisfied with the technical support provided by Microsoft for this product.

SQL Server is easy to implement, especially because it's a very common system that we use in the workplace.

Pricing for this product is very reasonable.

I evaluated Oracle Database.

SQL Server is a common product that I use on a daily basis, and I'm using its latest version. Most of my colleagues use it for database work.

200 people use this system in the company.

My advice for people looking into using SQL Server is that it's the best choice, especially for those who are beginners with databases.

My rating for SQL Server is nine out of ten.

SQL is our main data store for enterprise applications, all applications that we have in the organization.

SQL could be improved by making all features available on the on-premise version of the product as well as the cloud version. When you buy the on-premise version, it's sort of an inferior product compared to the cloud version, which seems to get most of the latest and greatest features.

I've been using this solution for a few years.

SQL is stable.

This solution is scalable.

I am satisfied with Microsoft's technical support.

The initial setup was ok, it met our requirements.

We implemented SQL ourselves, and it took around a week to install.

Subscriptions are available on a yearly basis.

I would give SQL a score of nine out of ten. 

Our use case is creating data warehouses using the SQL Server database.

The solution is deployed on-premises and on public and private clouds.

The solution has a user-friendly environment and supporting functionalities. It also has great memory and processing databases.

Other than Synapse and the other version of SQL Server, they face some problems while processing the data. For example, the one issue we face is that when we need to process the queue, it's costly with Azure and SQL Servers. We also face some memory issues with that.

I have been using this solution for more than eight years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have a different technical team that deals with issues. So we only communicate the issue to them, and they communicate with the team.

Setup is very easy, especially compared to Oracle.

Synapse is a bit costly. If I compare it with different databases, I think it's a reasonable price. If I'm talking about licensing of the Oracle, it seems that normal organizations have it and some smaller organizations can also afford it, which is a good thing.

I have also evaluated Oracle.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I always recommend SQL Server. To whoever asks me, I will say, "Just go for it." The databases are good. In terms of pricing, SQL Server is good. In terms of functionality, it gives you all the basic requirements. You can also integrate it with different applications, which is an advantage.

We are using it for various applications.

It is easy to deploy and easy to maintain.

They need to improve their support. It should be faster.

I have been using it for a couple of years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have more than a thousand users who use this solution. It is being used heavily, and we don't have any plans to increase its usage.

Their support needs improvement. It should be faster.

We didn't use any other solution previously. We have been using it for a long time.

It was easy.

I can install it myself. We also have a technical team of three admins.

Its licensing is yearly. There are no additional costs. There is only the subscription license.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it a seven out of 10.

We primarily use the solution as a backend server.

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

It's useful as a backend server.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

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

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

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

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

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

We are a customer and an end-user.

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