SQL Server Reviews

The product enables us to grant access to users. The product is easy to use.

The pricing could be better.

I have been using the solution for about four years.

We did not have any issues with stability. The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. Four other users have access to the server. We are not planning to increase the usage.

The setup is straightforward. The deployment does not take very long.

We did not use an integrator for the deployment. Our in-house team has been able to deploy the tool well.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I recommend the solution to others. The solution is straightforward to work with. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to extract data. We have a partnership with Microsoft and I'm a solutions architect. 

This is a user-friendly solution. It's great that I can extract the data from the SQL server and store it in my local data source for BI purposes.

I think that performance could be improved and SQL presents some challenges for us.

The stability is good. 

We haven't faced any scalability issues. We have over 200 users. 

I interact with multiple data sources, multiple customers and their ERPs. It can be Oracle, SAP or MongoDB among other solutions. MongoDB, for example, is a little more complex than the SQL Server and we often have more of a challenge establishing a connection with MongoDB.

The initial setup is not a problem. 

This solution is moderately expensive. 

I can definitely recommend this solution to smaller and midsize organizations. I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

SQL Server is used to establish secure storage and protect databases from potential vulnerabilities, including those originating from Slack.

The most valuable aspect is the ability to use jobs and various functions to accomplish specific tasks, which cannot be achieved with standard procedures alone. This allows for a combination of features and functionalities to be employed.

I have experience working with SQL Server 2016 and older versions, including handling JSON data. Initially, I found the JSON capabilities to be less helpful, but over time, they have greatly improved. 

SQL Server now offers extensive capabilities for working with various forms of data, particularly when communicating with text, such as in JSON format. 

I particularly prefer working with these features on Azure, as it provides numerous possibilities, especially in the field of business intelligence (BI). Additionally, the serverless platform offered by Azure is highly beneficial and makes tasks easier to manage.

I have not seen significant returns thus far, but I am eager to enhance my experience by transitioning to work in Azure. This shift to Azure is something I am motivated to improve upon.

I have been working with SQL Server since 2018.

We have not had any issues with the stability of SQL Server.

Scalability is dependent on memory.

The matter at hand pertains to whether we are discussing an issue in general or specifically in the context of on-premises environments. However, it is clear that memory and capacity are significant factors in both scenarios. 

Proper management of memory and capacity is essential to ensure smooth system operation and prevent any performance or stability issues. 

As a result, it is essential to handle these issues completely and appropriately in order to meet the system's requirements.

I have not contacted technical support.

The installation process is not complex, but it requires attention to detail in terms of selecting the necessary services and configuring the Cisco server. 

This ensures a proper setup and a tangible model for effective management. While it may not be complicated, it is important to choose the appropriate features during installation. 

Working with ID was not my primary focus; however, I have had the opportunity to work with it for several companies.

It can take an hour to an hour and a half to deploy.

Maintaining it is more challenging than the initial setup. One of the main concerns is ensuring sufficient memory allocation. The default capacity is typically set around sixty, but it can be increased if needed. If there is insufficient memory, it can lead to server downtime and cancellation of transactions, as exceeding the memory limit poses a risk. Therefore, it becomes crucial to address this issue by allocating more memory resources. Additionally, backups and restores play a significant role in ensuring data safety and recovery in case of any issues.

For a brief period, approximately one year before 2018, I had experience working with the open-source version of SQL Server. During that time, I found SQL Server to be the preferred choice, in my opinion.

I developed an application for specific purposes related to McDonough. Using Microsoft SQL Server, I constructed the entire database and implemented supporting stored procedures. This application was commissioned by the European Union to enhance government institutions and similar entities.

Additionally, I worked on financial-related stored procedures specifically related to Serbia Card, as part of a project for the USA.

We acted as a subcontractor for S&P within your company. I have extensive experience in SQL Server, particularly within the Microsoft environment.

They should think twice before they do anything and double-check. Definitely.

I have explored different options such as SonicWall and open-source solutions, but my preference lies with SQL Server. I find SQL Server to be fantastic, as it provides comprehensive functionality and makes tasks incredibly easy. 

Working with Postgres is also simpler compared to other databases like Oracle. Perhaps my familiarity with Excel has made SQL Server more intuitive for me. While I understand that Oracle is known for its complexity, I appreciate that its code and syntax bear similarities. 

Overall, I have a strong affinity for Microsoft products.

I would rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

We're primarily using the solution for our health record system.

The use of a solution with SQL Server has helped standardize how we import, store, and report data. It is a standard that many applications use so we are able to buy pre-made solutions instead of having to develop a solution and the data can be moved from application to application easily.

The solution comes at a more effective price than Oracle. 

It's a little bit more advanced than using MySQL or NoSQL.

It's more prevalent in the industry than SQL Postgre.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

The product is scalable. 

The stability has been mostly pretty good.

There is a lot of information about the solution readily available online.

Every time Microsoft comes out with a new version, they like to move everything around. Updates are a bit intrusive. For example, it used to be in a certain place and then they update it, and now I can't find it.

Technical support could be better. 

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.4. I have used it with several different companies and help upgrade several versions.

With the versions we have, the solution is quite stable. That's one of the reasons we don't immediately download the latest version. We wait a little bit before we go to the newest version. We want to make sure it's very stable beforehand.

The solution is very easy to scale. We have between 300 to 500 people that use it. 

Microsoft's tech support is really hard to use. I would rather look outside of Microsoft for solutions. When needed we usually pay the one-time fee but only in rare instances where a deep dive is needed to isolate the issue.

Positive

SQL's been the main solution for this company. I have, however, used Oracle in the past with other companies.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

It can be complex depending on what you're trying to do, however, it has a good user base and user support groups, so there's lots of information. If you're trying to do something, likely somebody else has already done it, and you can usually find that information through a user group or a forum, or even on YouTube or Google.

Implementation was a joint effort with our team and the vendor team. Most of the vendor team was India based and was very low-level for best practices and security. We had to clean up a bunch of their generic implementations and correct code.

That is a complex question since there are too many variables that are outside the range of IT to answer.

The pricing is pretty decent. It's less expensive than Oracle. 

While the solution started out really reasonable, it's gotten a little bit more pricey, as Microsoft keeps changing how they want to license it.

Whether you're using it in the cloud or on-premise changes the costs involved. A lot of times it might be more cost-effective to do it in the cloud. Microsoft includes a lot of the licensing in the cloud.

The evaluation was based more on the applications and the solution that the business unit wanted to use which are easier to support if they all use the same database structure. The most common was SQL Server.

We're just a customer and end-user.

We're not using the latest version. We're probably one or two versions behind.

I'd advise new users that you want to know what you're going to use it for. I would say it's more suited to a more midsize or larger company than a mom-and-pop shop - unless they're tying it to some software that uses SQL.

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

Performance-wise, SQL cannot handle large amounts of data. In the next release, I would like them to commission SQL Server on Linux, as has been announced in the past but has not yet happened.

I've been using SQL Server for thirteen to fourteen years.

SQL is a highly unstable server - there are patch updates on the Windows server every week, which is why we only use it for non-critical systems. 

The initial setup was very easy - much, much easier than Oracle - and took about a day to complete. Microsoft is less demanding because everything is GUI, unlike Oracle, where you need to use command lines.

This is a very cheap product.

SQL's performance is good enough if you have a low amount of data. For those looking into implementing SQL Server, I would advise first analyzing your requirements and whether your system is critical or non-critical. If it is non-critical, go for SQL as it will save you in terms of cost, but if it is critical, avoid SQL as it will bring you down in one day. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

This is the main database for our financial system. I'm the IT manager and we are customers of SQL server. 

We've been using this solution for many years.

We're satisfied with the stability.

We have around 100 users. The database isn't used directly, so users are not even aware that there is a SQL Server underneath. 

There are some local companies that have direct relations with Microsoft. We use them regularly when we need some support.

I don't recall, it's been many years since we implemented this product. 

We pay a license fee, it could always be cheaper.

I recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

We use this solution to store our data and for running queries, simple select queries that enable me to create the views I need and report from those views. I'm an ESM specialist and we are customers of SQL Server. 

I like the stability of the solution, the fact that you have two, three, four nodes replicating at any given time at different locations, and they're all synchronized; if one is lost it automatically moves to another. The other advantage here is that when it comes to application maintenance, you switch onto another node while you maintain another server and there's no downtime. 

The solution could have additional security. 

The solution is easily scalable because of its flexibility.

I don't do the installation, but it appears straightforward according to those who carried out the implementation. These days deployment takes about an hour. We have 1,200 or so users. With the onboarding of more customers, we'll be increasing our use of SQL Server. For now, we have one person dealing with maintenance. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We use SQL Server for developing systems.

The most valuable feature of SQL Server is the performance.

I have been using SQL Server for years.

We have approximately three people who are using this solution.

The technical support from Microsoft has been good.

The initial setup of SQL Server is straightforward.

We have two administrators that did the implementation of the solution.

The price of SQL Server could be reduced, the license is expensive. We have an annual subscription.

I would recommend SQL Server to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.