SQL Server Reviews

We are business consults. We use SQL Server to ensure that critical applications remain operational by performing BCM activities across application and database servers.

SQL Server has scaled as per our requirements.

I would like to see improvements made to the stability of SQL Server, as well as more analytics requirements.

From a restoration perspective, I have been working with SQL Server for a few years.

The stability of the SQL Server needs improvements.

We have over 2,000 users in our organization.

I have contacted technical support, and overall my experience with technical support was okay.

The installation took a few days to complete.

We have a team of three or four admins to maintain this solution.

We had assistance from an integrator.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

We were evaluating other solutions for a specific requirement in our organization. The requirement is now complete.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

SQL Server is used for storing data.

I have found SQL Server easy to use.

SQL Server could improve by having better usability or user guidance.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately five years.

The solution is stable and the performance is good.

SQL Server is scalable.

I have not needed to contact support.

The implementation was done by our IT department.

We did the implementation in-house.

The price of the solution is fine.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We have been using SQL Server for more than 10 or 15 years. 

Microsoft support is an issue unto itself. We mainly benefit from common support, such as a forum or Microsoft support, of which I don't have that much experience.

As with Oracle Database, the solution has a reliable database. I do not see much difference between the two when it comes to usage and the program decision to use one solution over another varies with the appropriateness of a given product, some utilizing Oracle, others Scale.

I am an SQL partner. 

As with Oracle, SQL Server is deployed on private cloud. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

SQL Server is the database for the transactional database that is being used.

The solution can be used for the BI, the data warehouse part as well, but mostly I have seen it used for the transaction data being stored by the DBMS part of it.

The solution is very easy to use, because even the technical engineers that we get are able to use it more efficiently. I like the programming interface they have where they help us get the table names that we are dealing with, and the field names in that particular table. 

The interface for building the queries or writing the store procedures is good.

If I compare the solution with current technology needs, like NoSQL, that have been prevailing now, they could improve it so there could be a single solution, where we could deal with a single database for both transactional as well as for the in-memory needs that we have.

For the integration part, additional interfaces would be an improvement. If SQL Server could expose certain APIs or certain interfaces which can be used for integration with the warehouse solution, then it would be great.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The team needed for implementing the solution depends on the project size and functionalities needed. But as far as the DB administrator, generally, we use a single resource for each project. One database engineer is sufficient for optimizing the query or indexes or building any database scripts.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We manage backups for our customers, so we are not developers and we don't use SQL to provide a service. We are a managed service provider focused more on IT support and SQL configuration. So we don't use SQL as a product by ourselves. Instead, we provide instructions for how to back up SQL and do maintenance on it for our customers who need a SQL server for their CRM and ERP products. Their products need to have a SQL server to use in order to use their services. So we handle the maintenance for our customers.

Microsoft has a very broad landscape of products that they provide—almost everything that you need. SQL Server is widely used and it's simple. You cannot do without Microsoft if you want to manage IT for a business customer. And even if you don't like Microsoft, you should know how to use it because just about every customer uses Microsoft, so you have to use it. So it doesn't matter if I like it. It's everywhere, so you have to know how to use it.

I've been using Microsoft SQL Server for 25 years now.

We are a reseller of Microsoft. We also signed the SPLA agreement, which stands for Services Provider License Agreement. So we are able to use Microsoft products in our data center in order to provide cloud services to our customers.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10.

I am a professional and I use this SQL Server in different companies. One of the companies I worked for was in the automotive industry. They had automobile products which they developed the SQL Server and database. At that time it was the first time I used SQL Server. I have also used Suprema which is a biometric system that also had an SQL Server. Our main products for data we have used SQL Server. However, my main application is developed on Oracle and MySQL, not any other database solution.

All of our systems use this solution, it can control security, data management, and integration. 

Many developers like SQL Server.

The solution could improve by having more integration with other operating systems and other platforms.

I have used SQL Server within the past 12 months.

SQL Server is stable.

The solution is scalable.

I have used MySQL.

If you follow the restoration policy, the installation is not a problem. If you want connectivity in the application then you have to open the ports and configure them. Otherwise, I'm very pleased it is very simple.

I can do the implementation myself.

SQL Server is under a license from Microsoft.

I would not recommend this solution.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.

The main use of this solution is to control and manage data storage information.

I would like the SQL Server to be able to provide cloud support. We use the solution with a Korean provider supporting only MySQL rather than Microsoft SQL Server, which would be preferable and cheaper. This would prevent us from having to pay for troubleshooting and hosting the server.

I have been using the solution for approximately two years. 

The solution is stable. 

I find the solution not to be scalable. 

There are approximately six people in our company using SQL Server.

I have not needed to contact technical support.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I did the implementation of the solution myself, it does not require any consultants or integrators.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten. 

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.