SQL Server Reviews

We set up SQL Servers for developers who develop applications for data mining. Our clients are generally small or medium-sized businesses. There's also a SQL Server Express that many software vendors use to support their applications. That gets installed often—usually as part of the application installation. 

It is fairly easy to work with. I like the high-availability options, like mirroring for example, and the high-availability groups. It's quite an interesting feature that enables high availability for the SQL Server. I think it's important. So that's the feature that I'm particularly interested in and it works pretty well.

The Management Studio is a pretty heavy piece of software, and it's sometimes slow. I would recommend making an express version of the Management Studio, which is lighter and has fewer features but is a little faster.

"Using" is the wrong word. We mostly set it up for others. The last time we set up an SQL Server for a client was about a year ago.

We haven't had any experiences. The software hasn't been unstable or glitchy in our environment so far.

In terms of scalability, it would be closed to a high-availability group. So I would say it varies in scale. 

I would rate it nine out of 10. Nothing's perfect.

The solution is primarily used as a relational database. It's a great option for anyone who needs to still use a database.

The solution is very common. It's easy to use.

The product offers a lot of support. Technical support has been great.

It's a reliable solution currently in this space.

The solution doesn't take a long time to set up. It's pretty straightforward. 

The solution is expensive. The licensing costs are high. 

I've been dealing with the solution for 20 years or so. It's been two decades. I've used it for a while. 

The stability is pretty good. I find it to be reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good.

We have 150 users on the solution currently.

I've contacted Microsoft technical support in the past and have been satisfied with the level of service I get. They're good.

We have a special database team that is running. Except for the initial installation of the hardware, they are doing everything as it's an in-house solution.

It took a day or two to implement. It might have even taken less time. 

We have a team that can manage the implementation process. 

The licensing is a bit expensive. We'd like them to be more flexible in terms of costs.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

We did not evaluate other solutions before implementing this solution. 

I'm using either the 2018 or 2019 version of the solution. I don' know the exact number off-hand.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a very good solution and I've been pretty happy with its capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution to other users.

We only use it as a logging solution. We use it as logging for processing our database. It holds records for some systems and so on. That's it.

The solution is stable.

The product is scalable.

The solution is configurable. 

The IT and digital transformation department are a bit fresh in this company that I am working for. They have a lot of plans, a lot of visions. I don't know how are they are going to do the infrastructure. I don't know their vision.

So far, the solution fits the scope of our company. We aren't missing any features. 

The integration could be better. They are not open-source, so the integration with other platforms is not that easy.

The company has been using them for a long time. I newly joined the company two months ago, so I don't know when exactly they start using it.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

You can scale the product. You can increase and decrease the storage as needed. It's very easy.

The amount of users on the solution is anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 users. 

While I've never been in touch with technical support, the administration team has. They've contacted the team in Egypt. I haven't heard of any negative experiences.

I've also worked with Oracle in the past. At this company, since it is an older server, it may have been in service longer. We were using the two databases for two different functions.

I wasn't a part of the installation process, however, it's my understanding that the company handled the installation themselves. 

The administration team has three or four team members. They can handle maintenance tasks and rotate tasks between themselves.

My understanding is that the company handled the installation internally. However, I was only recently hired. 

Any kind of information related to costs or licensing is beyond my scope. I don't deal with that aspect of the solution. I do not know if licensing is paid monthly or yearly.

We are customers and end-users.

Our architecture is divided. There are parts on-premise and parts on Azure cloud. I don't know exactly where the SQL Server sits. 

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

I might recommend it to other organizations. That said, it depends on the solution they need. I've worked on Oracle, I have worked on my Microsoft SQL servers. What would be best depends on the solution they need. However, Microsoft SQL servers are a very trusted product. I would recommend it if someone was asking about it.

We use the solution as a database for saving and managing data and applications.

Most valuable features include: high availability, clustering, save backup and recovery.

Although I am satisfied with the solution, some clients have asked us to resolve technical issues, such as those involving silver solution and replication.

I have been working with SQL Server for four or five years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I am satisfied with the solution's partner support. 

I am  satisfied with SQL Server.

Use of alternative solutions varies with the client involved. Some make use of all that SQL Server has to offer, while others employ everything in Oracle Database. We have managed to resolve any issues they have encountered in the two cases in which they have approached us. 

When examining Oracle or IBM db2, Oracle and SQL Server are generally the prefered products. 

While I find the setup and installation to be easy, others may find it difficult. 

I am only a technician and responsible for the installation, so I cannot comment on the licensing, although there are others in my company who are better qualified to do so. 

The solution is mostly deployed for our clients on-premises. 

We are satisfied with the documentation. 

My advice is that one adhere to the documentation before doing installation. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

We are using SQL Server to build and store our whole company's data in our data warehouse.

SQL Server is very good, it can be used as a transactional database and used to support the data warehouse. Additionally, the ANSI-compliant satisfies our database properties.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately eight years.

I do not think SQL Server is suited for a typical database warehouse environment. However, people do use SQL Server for data warehouse environments but the best use case is for very small databases. If somebody wants to store more than 10 TB of data querying then the performance really degrades. The performance should be improved in the future to allow more scalability.

The scalability issue could be why many are moving to solutions, such as Teradata or other high-end on-premise solutions. Additionally, cloud solutions offer better scalability options.

The technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you are looking for a small setup and do not want an open-source solution or invest too much money in your database then SQL Server is a very good choice.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Teradata.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are using SQL Server for internal development projects.

SQL Server is easy to manage because all our DevOps team are familiar with it and simple to access because it is cloud-based.

The solution could improve by being more user-friendly.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, we have found it to be vertically scalable, but horizontal scaling, we have not used it for this purpose.

We are mostly using this solution for internal use, not for public services. We have approximately 10 developers using it.

My experience with technical support has been an average level of satisfaction.

The installation is easy.

We have one individual that is managing the solution at this time.

For our purpose, we are not required to have a license for what we are using it for.

I would recommend this solution to developers who are familiar with Microsoft's platform. However, for others who work with Linux-based solutions, I could recommend something else.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

SQL Server is our main database solution. For example, we use it for our contact center software.

In Poland, SQL Server is the most popular database engine, and overall, our customers like it.

For small-scale businesses, Microsoft could improve by removing some limits in SQL Express.

In the future, it would be a benefit to have web-based management capabilities.

I have been using this solution for approximately five years.

Five years ago there were some stability issues but in the current version, the stability is good.

The solution is scalable.

We use the documentation provided online by Microsoft that has been helpful. We do not need to use technical support because we have many high-level technical staff who know how to use the solution.

The initial setup is very simple.

For smaller companies, they find this solution expensive.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We use this solution as our database.

It could be more stable.

I have been using SQL Server for four or five years.

SQL Server is a stable solution, but it could be improved.

Similar to Microsoft SQL, it is easy to scale.

We have a team of 300 people who are using this solution.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I used MySQL.

I was not involved in the installation.

We have an IT team to complete the installation.

There is no licensing cost for SQL Server.

I am a user of this solution but I don't know that I understand it well enough to recommend it to others because I did not install it.

I would rate SQL Server a five out of ten.