SQL Server Reviews

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.

We have used it in a variety of ways, including for e-commerce deployments. 

The solution is easy to use.

The deployments are very easy.

Technical support is very helpful.

The product can scale if a company needs it to.

The stability is quite reliable. 

The product can cost a bit, however, it depends on how you use it. 

The solution could be more secure.

I've used the solution over a number of years. I may have started originally around 2000. It's likely been two decades or so.

The product is quite stable. there are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

You can scale this solution if you need to. It's not an issue. 

Everyone in our company is using the product. We have about 80 users on it currently.

Technical support has been helpful and responsive. We have no complaints. We are satisfied with the level of service provided to our company.

The solution is very easy to deploy. It's not a problem.

The amount of time it takes to deploy depends on what you want the solution to do for your company.

We have an installer available to us that can guide us through the process and help us choose the right options. 

The solution can get expensive. You do need to pay a licensing fee in order to use it. I can't speak to the exact costs. There are different subscription types and the subscription a company needs depends on the deployment they have in mind.

I've used the solution on a couple of deployments and also deploy patches. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations and companies. 

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.

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 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.