SQL Server Reviews

We use the solution for managing our database functions.

The solution is easy to use.

The performance could improve.

I have been using the solution for approximately four years.

I have found SQL Server stable.

I have found it to be scalable.

The technical support is good from Microsoft. We have four people that do the maintenance of the solution.

The initial setup is straightforward, it took approximately one hour.

I did the implementation myself.

There is a license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are using the latest version.

We can use the solution for the same application. On the database side we have Microsoft SQL and on the operating system side we have 2019.

I want to see one improvement and this involves the replication between the DC and DR. We have limited options at the moment and it does not lend sufficient support for the number of databases. This means we have a huge number of databases, topping approximately 2,000. For the moment, this particular replication is not supported by SQL. 

The support number of databases needs to be increased, as well as the database number of databases that it supports. That support cannot be found when it comes to the replication between the DC and DR. 

I have been using SQL Server for ten years. 

The solution is sufficiently stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

When it comes to the speed, knowledge and customer-friendliness of the technical support, we feel these to be good. 

We did not use other solutions prior to SQL Server. 

The initial setup is easy, flawless. 

It lasts a single day. 

We handed the implementation on our own. 

This involved a technical team of 15 people. 

There is a need to pay for the license for SQL Server. We have an enterprise license, which we consider to be fine. 

We have 10,000 customers. 

I would recommend the solution to others. 

SQL Server is good and I rate it as a nine out of ten. 

I love the developer version. Microsoft tells you about all the cool things they provided for everybody. You can develop and do anything with it. It's really good to learn. Oracle will not give you that much freedom, and Microsoft really kills it. 

You don't do anything with it but develop, learn, break, and push it to its limits. If there are problems, you show Microsoft or ask them, "what's going on here?" There is good community support for the developer edition, and that's what I really appreciate. You can teach people about it without limitations. You can have small databases created. You can keep it for a year and then work on it. It's a good thing for learners and developers.

The price could be better. It costs a lot, and competing databases like Postgres are free.

I have been using SQL Server for about ten years.

There are problems in all systems, and I don't see any difference between open source and proprietary solutions. SQL Server, Postgres, and Oracle are all vulnerable. There are no known issues per se, but any system can be broken. There is nothing special about this database.

SQL Servers and other databases are all scalable. I just don't see any problem with scalability.

Whenever we have issues, we talk directly with Microsoft. They are responsive, and they help.

I'm more into open source solutions, and I love Postgres. I've worked as a database administrator as well. But I really hate all the tools used to manage performance or backup or just any of those disaster, recovery, and availability solutions. I hate them. They really impose a lot of overhead in a demonstration and aren't really flexible. When you're in the cloud, you don't have to worry about most of those things. 

Some of them still exist, but the cloud providers do provide them and you stick to that. You enhance them or add some more features, but really the most hated feature is, making sure that your database really can recover from many kinds of disasters. Resiliency, the most important part and when that is really managed by the cloud online, the overhead costs  are removed. The rest is really easy. Performance is okay, and there are indicated spots for data because I work with financial data and a lot of it is our important critical data. So, the cloud is really the best thing that happened to us.

When it comes to the initial setup, most of them can be automated. For example, most setup settings for progressions, management, disaster and recovery, failover, and failback. Most of those things can be automated and provisioned into one kind of pipeline. Connecting that data to an application and even provisioning from the code repository through Jenkins. Those things are really easy to automate.

It costs a lot.

I would advise potential users to use SQL Server with Microsoft Azure. I don't recommend managing it locally.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a seven.

Usually, we use a lot of the vendor software, like ManageEngine, and stuff like that. They use Postgres, however, I prefer to use Microsoft's SQL server. We have a couple of servers and we integrate that information into it. I can run reporting and analysis off of that.

There's a lot of great features. I like T-SQL, which is wonderful. The backups are excellent. There's a lot of things that are much easier to manage. All of the features and functions within the SQL language itself, the store procedures, I really, really enjoy. The security has been excellent.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

The stability is very good.

We find it easy to scale if we need to.

I would like to see better integration between their link server and other platforms, such as IBM, due to the fact that, a lot of times, you want to set up a linked server so you can be on SQL and pull data off of another server using that link server. Sometimes they don't play well together. There just needs to be better integration for those types of situations.

I've been using the solution for about eight or nine years at this point. 

The stability is great. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. The performance is great. 

Scaling is easy if you need to do it. You simply set up a cluster and you can just grow it up.

In our organization, all the end-users are pretty much integrated into it and using it. As far as developers, there are two developers and me that are using it.

We haven't used tech support as we used to have a business partner that wanted us to talk to them instead. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be if you need assistance. 

Here at the company, they used Postgres, and what I didn't care about it was that it was okay, but it didn't integrate with a lot of the other applications. I felt Microsoft did a better job of that.

The setup is pretty straightforward. The only thing that sometimes gets weird is if you have somebody that's needing an ODBC driver from another type of application back to the SQL server. It's usually that other application trying to figure out what it needs to connect to SQL. It's not really SQL's fault.

We are customers and end-users.

We are using both the latest version and a previous version of the solution. I don't have the exact version numbers on hand. 

I would advise new users first to get help implementing it unless you know the solution well, as there's so much that it can do. A lot of times you can actually make a little mistake. Say if you're going to go in a certain direction, if you get some advice, you may be much happier going in another direction completely.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been quite satisfied with its capabilities. It's an excellent product that still has room for growth.

Right now, we are using DB2 and the SQL Server. It's really helpful for the replication of data. It's real-time and very easy to use.

The product is very stable. We find it to be reliable.

The scalability is okay. 

The installation is pretty straightforward.

For now, we've found the features to be sufficient. I cannot recall feeling anything is actually missing.

The pricing of the product could be better. They could make it more reasonable or more competitive.

Microsoft's technical support could be better.

We've been supporting these servers for a couple of years at this point. It's likely been about two or so years. We've worked with them for a while. 

The solution is very stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We're happy with it.

The scalability potential depends on the resources. If the resources are enough, we can scale it. For us, it's already enough. However, if a company plans to expand, it should be prepared for that beforehand. 

We have more than ten users on the solution currently.

Microsoft technical support could be improved upon. They aren't the best. They could always be better.

We also use IBM DB2. We support it for our customers.

We have found the solution to be straightforward. It's not overly difficult or complex. A company shouldn't have any issue with implementation.

The product implementation process depends on the needs of the client. For us, deployment was around 30 minutes to one hour. It's pretty quick.

The solution could be priced more competitively. We'd, of course, like it to be lower. Microsoft can sometimes be expensive.

Each customer needs their own license.

We use the solution both on the cloud and on-premises. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been pleased with its capabilities overall.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies. They should know that it is very easy to use. 

We had two people that handled the initial setup - an engineer and a manager. It's pretty easy to handle if an engineer is doing the setup.

We find the Microsoft SQL Server affordable compared to its real competitors. 

We find it easy to manage. 

It offers a very robust infrastructure for us.

The solution is easy to set up.

We have found the stability to be good.

We've had a good experience with technical support. They are helpful.

We may use different levels of SQL Server when it comes to licensing. We have some Enterprise and some Standard services. They can improve the recovery processes of the replication or disaster recovery scenarios for the lower-tiered version, such as the Standard server.

While we have many options in Enterprise, it's expensive for most companies.

The configuration process can be a little complex. 

Technical support can take a while to respond in Turkey.

The solution may be better with some integration with some factory cloud software. With the standard version, the lodgement process is never enough. We are replicating near real-time to make recovery easy and to make all the RPO targets as expected. 

You cannot recover SQL Servers, especially for big financial companies like ours. It's not easy to erect SQL Servers on any other site, and with an acceptable data loss in the foundations.

Personally, I have used the solution for about 15 years at this point. It's well over a decade. I've used it for a while. 

The stability has been great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's reliable. 

The Microsoft team never responds fast in Turkey. I cannot say they are fast. Unless you have some Enterprise agreement, they're not quick. However, I find that when I deal with the same technician a few times, they are quite good and very helpful. They are very capable. They know what they are talking about. 

We also use Oracle Servers. 

The initial implementation is easy and straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult to set up.

However, it's not just the server we have to set up. We have a cluster environment. Mostly it's just, click, click, click and you are done, however, the configuration process is a bit more difficult. Adjusting performance levels, in particular, can be a real challenge.

The enterprise version of the solution is very expensive and most companies would likely find that they wouldn't be able to afford it. 

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution, however, it will only be effective if the company hires an effective administrator. While there are default settings, you will likely need to configure quite a bit and connect most of your hardware in the correct way. To be effective, it really needs to be tuned by a professional. 

We use a tool called Tosca for automation and all the automation artifacts we are saving are on the SQL Server.

The solution is easy to use and provides similar features to other competitors.

SQL Server could improve by increase the performance, it cannot handle large amounts of data. I did not find any additional features compared to others solutions.

I have been using this solution for a few years.

The solution is stable.

We have not scaled the solution extensively, but I do not foresee any problems.

We have been using Hadoop and Spark.

The installation and configuration are straightforward.

We have a team of three people doing the backend maintenance and application support for this solution.

We did not encounter any issues that we would need support. 

I would recommend this solution to others for small operations. For bigger applications with large amounts of data and a lot of users, I would not recommend it.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.

We use SQL Server for database management.

The main feature of this solution is ease of use.

I have been using SQL Server within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable and reliable.

SQL Server has been very scalable.

We have approximately 200 users using the solution in my organization.

We are satisfied with the technical support.

I previously used a different solution in the other company I worked for.

We have a hardware support partner who does the implementation.

The price of the solution could be cheaper.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

We use SQL Server for web application and website development.

The most valuable features of this solution are easy queries and straightforward programming for beginners.

SQL Server could improve by providing something similar to an interface or dashboard where a developer can do debugging, this would make a developer's work easier. Additionally, the optimization could be better. If there was an interface showing information needed for the optimization it would help because there can be some data loss making it difficult to optimize the SQL Server.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good for simple applications. However, the problem with scalability is if the application is too large, it cannot handle it. We have to depend on other database servers. 

I have not used technical support but I have used the open forums online that provide all the information that we have needed. There is a large online community for support. 

The installation is straightforward.

There is a license required for this solution and we pay monthly. The price is reasonable compared to other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

This solution is part of the ERP that we have for application. We use it for many purposes, such as POS in-store cash registers for enterprise companies.

SQL Server provides good performance. Most of the SQL solutions can be integrated and this solution is no different, you are able to link other databases. For example, we have Oracle running a Postgres Server and it is linked. It follows the ISO standard when it comes to commands, it works well.

They could improve by adding the SQL format.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately eight years.

The solution is stable, I have not had any issue using it.

The scalability is very good.

We have approximately 500 users using the POS.

I have previously used IBM Informix, PostgresSQL, and Oracle Databases.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately 30 minutes. If you were to add more features the installation could take longer. For example, there are many features such as table partitioning allowing you to do queries faster, transferring data from one table to another, and performing quicker backups.

We did the implementation ourselves. We have a team that does the maintenance for Windows Servers, Linux desktops, and Linux Servers.

There is a license required for servers and for the POS we use the free version. The free version allows you to have tables and a total database size of approximately 10 GB, which is enough for our requirements.

This is an excellent solution when it comes to databases. I would recommend it to others.

I rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.