SQL Server Reviews

The solution is used primarily for medium companies in vertical accounting applications. We use the solution as a good general-purpose database.

I value the ability it gives me to test on small machines and easily scale up to larger devices for live applications.

When we run into problems, it's usually during installation, and finding answers to the problem has been a nightmare because the documentation is terrible.

Likewise, I find the business reporting rather poor, and the solution doesn't work well as a data warehouse product. When I tried to use it as one, I did not find it very satisfactory.

I've used SQL Server for about 20 years, probably. I've used a number of different versions, including 2010 and 2007.

We have never had a stability problem.

We rarely have more than a few hundred users. It's more about the person using it since we don't have heavy, continuous use.

We've never had a sensible answer from technical support.

I have generally found implementing the solution easy. But when it comes to the time we took to implement the solution, the problem's always been the application and not the database. The solution is usually easy to implement because we use standard facilities. If you need something special, you run into all sorts of trouble because SQL Server gives you an awful lot of ability to change the settings.

We've used it as a development tool, and it's very cheap as a development tool. Besides, someone else has paid for it for my use, so it's a question of whether the cost suits the end user. The solution has a good midrange price for the applications in which we've used it. Oracle's pricing would raise more eyebrows, but SQL Server's pricing has proven satisfactory for our market range.

We mainly use SQL Server because it's cost-effective for our applications. We've occasionally tried other databases for various reasons. We've used the Sybase database, but the Sybase database is very close to SQL Server. We've also tried MySQL, but that was more of an exercise in porting than anything else. However, it's not a fair comparison because we had done the development on SQL Server and then used that as a porting exercise.

The solution's generally been easy to use for the general cases we've used. The solution has been satisfactory for the sort of applications we've used.

We've been very much middle of the road in using SQL Server. We don't use specialist, and we've tried to keep to standard SQL as far as possible. We don't use the clustering facilities or try to use any of the specialist facilities. We could drop it and switch to MySQL or another database if we had to. We are using SQL Server, not for the particular services it's got, but using it as a middle-range product. We're taking advantage of the fact that it runs on all sorts of platforms, and it's a good value development product that works very easily for us. We're not using it for some of the things Microsoft clients find particularly useful for. We're not high-intensity users. For people like us, it fits in very easily.

For our purposes, SQL Server is just about ideal. It's easy to use and fit. Some of the later versions, in particular, have been easy to use. We have had installation problems on some of the later versions, and the documentation is poor. I'll rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We use the product as a database for the applications. 

The tool helps us by being available always. 

We don't encounter any issues with the solution. 

The tool is expensive.

I have been using the product for the last ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

The tool is scalable. 

The tool is easy to install. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

I would rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten. It is not extremely cheap but also it's not the most expensive product. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. 

I'm a web developer, and I use SQL for the backend.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its ease of use.

It's a pretty stable solution.

We found it to be quite scalable. 

While using it, we really didn't experience any pain points. It doesn't need any additional features. 

I have a couple of years of experience with the solution so far. 

The stability and performance are good. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's not buggy. there are no glitches. It's pretty reliable. 

The scalability has been good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

I've never used technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. 

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

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 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. 

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 to store databases. 

Since MongoDB, we have come up and there are lots of tools that do enhance the database management system or keep an eye on our data. People can easily access it. 

The solution is stable. It's reliable. 

The initial setup is simple. 

MongoDB is a bit better. A traditional database system, like the SQL Server, is failing to catch up.

You need an experienced person to use that piece of technology so that you can store everything in a logical manner. We'd like it to be easier to store in a logical manner.

The scalability could be better. 

We've been using this solution since 2012. It's been a while at this point. 

It's not scalable. It hinders your performance as it's slow in nature and you need experienced people to work on it. That is why it's not very scalable.

We currently have ten to 15 users on the solution. 

At this time, we have no plans to increase usage. We are focusing more on MongoDB.

We don't have any experience with Microsoft technical support. Therefore, I wouldn't be able to rate how responsive or helpful they are.

We did not previously use a different solution. We are currently moving towards MongoDB, however.

The installation is easy, especially since the new version has come up. Now, with the latest versions, installation is easy.

I cannot remember the time it took to complete the installation.

Earlier, we had to bring in a technical team, however, our own technical team is quite experienced now. They can now do it themselves.

We pay a yearly subscription fee. 

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. We're using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. If there are people who can't afford MongoDB or if an organization doesn't want to migrate to MongoDB, it's important to keep in mind the users would have to learn the fundamentals of the SQL server first. Knowledge of it is a necessity.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.

We primarily use SQL Server for reporting.

I love SQL Server's Common Table Expression. In addition to that, I like its lead and lag functions. That helped us reduce a lot of code when comparing rows in SQL Server.

The way SQL Server pivots data could be improved. For example, I would like built-in comma-separated pivot and unpivot functions. 

I've been working with SQL Server for the past seven years. 

SQL Server is stable.

SQL Server is scalable. I can't say if we'll increase usage in the future because I'm only working here as an analyst. It's a company decision. If necessary, then I can make a recommendation. I can go for that if the client wants, so it depends entirely on our client. If the client wants Oracle instead of Microsoft, I don't have an option.

I never contacted Microsoft support about SQL Server, but I have called about Power BI one or two times. It was great support.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10.