SQL Server Reviews

For my business requirements, the performance is good. If we use it on a larger scale, it will not fit our business needs.

It is easy to use.

It has simple syntax, but you must check your packet on a daily basis.

We occasionally face or encounter a problem with the database table itself. Some tables and their flyers, as well as the content's data, must be truncated. It was a major issue with my ERP system because it is a backbone database application. It hasn't happened often, but it was a bad experience. Regarding some table issues, I believe we will encounter them in many applications, but I believe the other vendor, such as Oracle, has more than tools to protect my data.

In the next release, I would like to see a better user interface and a familiar syntax.

I have been working with SQL Server since 2003. It's been more than 10 years.

We use a version component for each application. One is for 2014, and the other is for 2017.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

We have two users in my company. The ERP system has nearly two users. We have about five users for subsidies and the sister company.

I'm not going to increase our usage because I'm going to the cloud. We're going to the cloud, according to my plan. Oracle NetSuite, Microsoft cloud, or NetSuite. Because they are both cloud-based, I don't need to increase the number of SQL server users, either for administration or for users.

I'm not opening a ticket with SQL about the issues we experienced, because it was opened by my partner, but it didn't solve the problem. For my table, it almost uses truncate comma syntax, and it flushes my table contact.

Approximately 10 years ago, I used Oracle Database.

The initial setup is straightforward. I did not encounter any issues.

We have 12 technical teams with four admins to maintain the solutions in our companies.

I don't need a license for it as I will be migrating to Office 365.

I would recommend this solution for small and medium-sized companies, but for enterprise businesses.

I know it's not the best, but this application meets our requirements.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I am an integrator of this solution and my customers use this for ETL and reporting.

This solution is user-friendly and easy to understand.

The stability of the solution should be improved in the next release. Sometimes it is great, sometimes it is troublesome. I would also like data conversion and the code pages to be a bit more straightforward.

I have been working with SQL Server for the past fifteen years.

Stability can be shaky.

This is a scalable solution.

I use to work with Informatica via the Oracle package and switched to SQL because it is cheaper and a bit better than the others.

This solution is pretty easy to deploy.

SQL Server has the best licensing price.

There is a lot to learn about this solution when first using it, as with any other tool.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This application is used as a contact center and would be great for banks.

The backup capabilities are extremely good.

I would like to have the ability to restore backups in the next release.

I have been working with SQL server for the past ten years.

This solution is very stable from what we have seen.

This is a scalable solution.

Technical support is very good. I am able to easily contact them and they are very informative.

The initial setup was straightforward.

This is a great solution for anyone with basic knowledge of DNS who wants to build up a database. There are many videos to help you navigate the platform.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I use the client, however, I can also use the server, the Microsoft SQL Server Studio. I can use both, both the client and the studio.

We connected Automation Anywhere to the DB. Our reporting tool is also connected to that DB. Our financial application is also connected to the DB and some other databases too as well as some of our APIs.

I like the way it can manage the users from the security section where you can change their roles. 

SQL is simple to manage, as long as you know the script, and know the tables that you make reference to. If there are errors, you can easily debug them. 

You can easily debug and resolve your issues. 

The ease of backup, how you can back up and call up your backups too is great. Backups hardly get corrupt, except if maybe you have some bad hard drive clusters or bad hard drive sectors.

It is stable.

It's an easy-to-use product.

I find the solution to be scalable.

The pricing could be more affordable.

It's like to see less frequent updates. They should be once a month.

I've been using SQL Server for a very long time.

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

The product scales well. If you need to expand it, you can.

We have around 50 users on the solution right now. 

The solution is pretty problem-free and therefore it would be rare to have to reach out to support.

We've always used SQL. I also use SQLite.

The initial setup is very simple, very straightforward. It's not too complex. 

The time it takes to set up isn't long. The time of installation is determined by the local system or the server where you are installing it to. That said, it's a light solution. For me, it took maybe ten minutes. 

We have eight people who are technical and can handle deployment or maintenance tasks. 

I did the installation myself. It's not hard to do. You don't need a consultant or integrator.

We pay a monthly subscription fee. 

I'm an end-user.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

We are using it for storing important data. 

Its security is good. The GUI of SQL Server is also very good.

It is very costly, and that's the reason people are moving away from SQL Server. 

They have started using Linux, and Linux is the way forward for SQL Server. They have to invest a lot in that.

I have been using this solution for almost 10 years.

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is good.

I haven't spoken to their support team in the last three years, but prior to that, their support was good.

I also have experience with Postgres. The main difference between SQL Server and Postgres is that Postgres is open source. The Community version of Postgre is basically free. Postgres is very easy to set up and very easy to scale. It is quite a good database.

It is very easy.

It is expensive in terms of licensing costs and pricing. If you want to scale SQL Server, it is very expensive.

We probably have to pay extra for technical support. We also have to pay for the license of Windows on which the SQL Server resides, which is an extra cost.

I would recommend SQL Server for its stability, scalability, and ease of use. I would rate it an eight out of 10.

I use the SQL Server for backups and for creating databases and a lot of other stuff. I also use it to shrink data and some stuff like this. 

The solution is great for creating backups.

You can create databases using this product.

I like the way you can shrink the volume using SQL.

It's a very stable solution.

I've found the product to be able to scale well. 

There should be more security updates for the product. That would be ideal. 

I've used the solution for about five or six years. I've used it for quite a while at this point. 

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

So far, I have found the solution to be quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it out, it can do so. 

We have about 4,000 users on the solution currently. About five to seven different departments use it. 

I don't directly deal with technical support. That would be handled by a different department and a person who is responsible for dealing with issues. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

I did not use a different solution before using SQL. 

It's easy for anyone to install. For me, it was good and easy to install. A company shouldn't have any issues tacking the process. 

The deployment is quick. It takes about 15 to 20 minutes. That's it. 

I didn't need the assistance of consultants or integrators. It was something I could handle on my own. 

You can pay an annual or monthly licensing fee in order to use the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. It's very useful.

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

We have a few transitional systems in our large company that we maintain with Microsoft SQL Server.

SQL Server is similar to other Microsoft products, such as BI, they are easy to use. You do not need to have an expensive BD to maintain them. All the useful intuitive features you find in Microsoft solutions you will find in SQL Server.

I have used SQL Server within the past 12 months.

SQL Server is stable. However, every product has limitations. It is stable for a certain amount of workload. Beyond the capabilities of this solution, you will need other data solutions, such as Oracle. A solution that is more secure.

Since this is a relational order system, scalability has a limit. If your system is very big, you need bigger servers and you have to spend more money. We scale a system up to a certain level, and then we move or shift data to the warehouse, which is NoSQL. We then do not have any bottleneck in scaling. For using this technique we are happy with it.

It is hard to tell or count how much data we are using because being one of the leading companies in Bangladesh, we have many teams who work on it. Different teams work on many different technologies.

We have not had an issue with the scalability SQL Server.

For databases, we have used a lot of data tests with other solutions, such as Oracle. We have used all Oracle data, Postgres, and a few others.

The initial setup is very straightforward. You do not have to worry about the management of the SQL Server instance.

To scale the solution there are additional costs.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

Our use case is creating data warehouses using the SQL Server database.

The solution is deployed on-premises and on public and private clouds.

The solution has a user-friendly environment and supporting functionalities. It also has great memory and processing databases.

Other than Synapse and the other version of SQL Server, they face some problems while processing the data. For example, the one issue we face is that when we need to process the queue, it's costly with Azure and SQL Servers. We also face some memory issues with that.

I have been using this solution for more than eight years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have a different technical team that deals with issues. So we only communicate the issue to them, and they communicate with the team.

Setup is very easy, especially compared to Oracle.

Synapse is a bit costly. If I compare it with different databases, I think it's a reasonable price. If I'm talking about licensing of the Oracle, it seems that normal organizations have it and some smaller organizations can also afford it, which is a good thing.

I have also evaluated Oracle.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I always recommend SQL Server. To whoever asks me, I will say, "Just go for it." The databases are good. In terms of pricing, SQL Server is good. In terms of functionality, it gives you all the basic requirements. You can also integrate it with different applications, which is an advantage.

We use the product as a database, a data tool for everything. 

SQL Server, as a database, is great.

When it comes to the governmental sector, it is easily dealt with and can handle a big load of data. Specifically, after they added the capability of building a big data cluster from the SQL Server itself it's been great. 

If it was a database developer who was working with it or database admin, it provides a lot of tools and potential utilization that helps in doing the work in the right way.

Stability-wise, it's stable. 

If we want to expand to other servers and create an extra node, it's expandable. If you want to connect it with another, let's say, cloud node, it's also expandable with the cloud node. 

Security-wise, it provides most of the required security aspects in the market suchg as hashing, or encrypting, or hiding some data in tables (according to privileges and tools of the users). That can be done throughout it easily. 

It's an out-of-the-box solution. Lately, after they created the SQL Azure, if you use the Azure SQL Explorer, or SQL Server Management Studio, both of them can connect to the same database easily. It's natively built on the same core.

In my experience, while working with multiple sectors, such as banking, services, et cetera, there are some limitations for some sectors when dealing with the data.

It would be great if we were able to run it on multiple operating systems and not only stick with Windows. 

I've been using the solution for five or maybe six years. It's been a while. 

The stability is great. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is reliable. 

It's very easy to scale the solution in multiple ways. If a company needs to expand, it can do so easily.

I can't say it is easy to deploy as it depends on the admin, however, it is doable. Most of the databases, in general, require configuration. Therefore, if the admin knows what he's doing, then it's super easy.

A full deployment, depending on what is needed, might take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes. It's fast.

I can't speak to the pricing. I don't have any information on that.

It's my understanding that we pay for licensing on a yearly basis. 

There is also another added product they created, called Synapse, Azure Synapse Analytics. Both of them are similar to Microsoft PowerBI on-prem with SQL Server on-prem.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There are other competitors that are also doing a very good job as well.

All of our .NET applications and some of our third-party applications require a single server database, AutoCAD, and things like that. Our custom apps are the largest estate of databases.

In our production environments, we're on version 17. I've worked with the most recent version but not in a production environment. 

I like the availability group functionality. We are setting up more clusters using availability groups. The enterprise licensing or Software Assurance makes it a little bit cheaper as well. It is nice to have that read-only copy for reporting and everything else.

They've been adding a lot of great functionality such as columnstore indexes to improve the way indexes are rebuilt and to be able to do online index rebuilds. All those are great features.

On the SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) side, I have noticed more bugs in terms of being able to connect to our SQL servers. I can't tell how many times my recent server list got dropped or cleaned out. It is a pain, and it would be nice to have that recent connect list when you connect in. For whatever reason, once in a while, I get a hard error, and it'll close. When I go back in, everything is cleared out. It is annoying when you are working with more than a hundred database instances.

I have been working with this solution for probably 18 years.

Everything is pretty much scripted out, so it is pretty straightforward for us. 

They've been adding a lot of great functionality, and hopefully, they continue down that path. We don't use a lot of the more advanced features at this point, but for what we're doing right now, it's working really great with availability groups and other features. 

Its usability has gotten a lot better after version 14. There were a lot of great updates after version 14 for SQL or query performance with the engine.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.