SQL Server Reviews

We use SQL Server as a database management system for all of our projects.

While this is a reliable product, it has room for improvement.

Although Microsoft SQL was accessible in some projects, we did not use it everywhere. It is determined by the project. It's quite beneficial in some circumstances, but it couldn't support SQL databases in others, consequently, we used other suppliers like Oracle, Informix DB, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and others.

We have been using SQL Server for quite some time now.

We use it both on-premises and in the cloud. It is dependent on the projects.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

SQL Server scales well.

In the future, we may expand our usage.

I don't have any issues with the technical support.

We evaluated each product after using it, starting with Informix DB and ending with Oracle.

Oracle, Informix DB, PostgreSQL, and MySQL are among the products we use.

It's quite easy to install.

Completing the installation is not an issue.

My position is not related to installation, but if it is necessary, I am capable of doing it.

It requires the purchase of a license. Our company's products all have licenses.

It is appropriate for small and medium-sized businesses.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are using SQL Server for our financial application package.

One of the best features of SQL Server is the efficient retrieval of information.

We want to move to Azure, and the solution could be made better to make the process easier for the migration from on-premise to the cloud.

I have used SQL Server for approximately seven years.

SQL Server is stable. However, Microsoft products have a tendency to crash. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of stability.

The scalability of SQL Server is good.

The solution is straightforward to install.

The price of SQL Server could be better in the African market. The licensing model needs to be improved, it is confusing.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We use the latest version.

Most SQL Server applications come with package applications from the shelf. This means that when one buys an application, most of these applications work with SQL Server as a basis. They add SQL Server as a database to applications which come with it that one buys. As such, I don't see many people developing new applications with SQL server.

A valuable feature of the solution is that it is comparatively simpler to manage than Oracle. Now that the Linux version is an option, this can be taken into consideration, since Windows limited one's use to things which could only be done in Windows. 

Database support could be improved. Oracle provides better support. 

While the price of the solution is comparatively cheaper, people are paying to Microsoft, in any event, for other things that they're using. 

Thoughs the licensing cost could be cheaper, this depends, as there is nobody who only uses the database with Microsoft. Every company has Windows, Office, Active Directory and all the security features of Microsoft. This means that, overall, when one buys these licenses together, he also gets the database. The focus is not on the price of the database, but what is actually being paid to Microsoft. 

The licensing price could be better, more user-friendly. Things should be be moved from the enterprise to the standard edition. 

As with Oracle, we have been using SQL Server for a long time. They actually have the same shelf life. We have been using the solution for around 30 years. 

The support does not reflect how Microsoft used to be. It can depend. Oracle has a much more sophisticated database, so it comes with expanded support. There are many solutions which come out of the box, as all the problems which could arise have already been encountered by the customers. This is why they are building a big data, to have a ready answer for any issue which may arise, the answer being very quick and straightforward. 

When it comes to Microsoft, noone delves deep, so such problems as those arising with Oracle are not encountered. Oracle is much more sophisticated and comes with many problems. This is why the solution comes with better support, as they have already provided a foundation for many of the solutions.

We did not use a solution prior to SQL Server, with the exception of, maybe, Access. 

The installation is good. 

It took very little time, a couple hours. 

Installation can be done on one's own. Everything can be done sequentially, from one thing to the next. 

While the price of the solution is comparatively cheaper, people are paying to Microsoft in any event for other things that they're using.

Although the licensing cost could be cheaper, this depends, as there is nobody who only uses the database with Microsoft. Every company has Windows, Office, Active Directory and all the security features of Microsoft. This means that, overall, when one buys these licenses together, he also gets the database. The focus is not on the price of the database, but what is actually being paid to Microsoft.

The licensing price could be better, more user-friendly. Things should be moved from the enterprise to the standard edition.

Microsoft is fine. They have done a good job.

As everyone has a station with Microsoft installed, everybody is making use of it. When it comes to the database, this depends on the application. As I said, we are talking about a package solution, so use of the same application could consist of several hundred people or thousands. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

It's a normal DMS, so it can be used everywhere you want to use any RDBMS or relational database. It's for normal transactions.

SQL Server could integrate better with other platforms.

I've been using SQL Server for the last six months. Earlier we used DB2, but now we use this one.

SQL Server's performance is fine.

Microsoft support is fine.

We don't deal with the setup because we are developers. The system or admin team does all those things. So I don't have any idea.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10. We haven't had any issues, but it depends on the use case. So I would recommend it depending on your use case.

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. 

We used SQL Server to store all of our lab data on the database. We had a front-end application that needed SQL in the background for archiving all the laboratory data.

The solution could improve by having better integration.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately three years.

The solution could be more stable.

We have approximately 200 users that use an application that uses the SQL Servers database.

The installation was straightforward. We did not have a large installation and it took a couple of weeks to complete.

Our IT department does the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There is an annual license and it is priced reasonably.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

SQL Server can be useful for a lot of businesses and enterprise solutions. SQL Server is very powerful and useful when you need to store, retrieve, process, and analyze a large amount of data. In my organization, almost everyone uses SQL Server. That's about 10 people using it.

SQL Server's Management Studio is very user-friendly. I like their database and the additional features it offers. It's also easy to integrate SQL Server with things like CLR, PowerShell, and command shell

I would like to see SQL Server add the ability to write to multiple sites or support replication between multiple sites at the transaction level. If we can have data available on multiple sites as quickly as possible, that would be a great feature.

I've been using SQL Server for around 10 years. I have 30 years of experience in the IT industry. In that time, I have worked on different kinds of databases, such as Oracle. Before that, I worked on FoxPro. I have also worked with PostgreSQL.

It's absolutely scalable. 

Our clients are the end-users of the SQL Server applications, and we do all the development and maintenance for them. So anything related to support, our clients take care of it.

I work on the development and performance-tuning side, so I don't do the installation but my guess would be that it is pretty straightforward by now. 

I am not aware of the cost because our clients take care of them, but I think there are enterprise licenses. If you go for Azure Cloud databases, then you just can pay as you go.

SQL Server is my favorite database. Because I've been working on it for so many years, I like it. I have only good things to say about it. I would rate SQL Server nine out of 10.

We do data warehousing, and our clients are mainly large commercial Insurance providers in the United States.

It's easy to use and fairly intuitive. I do development and data analysis, so we do a lot of work with SSIS and SQL Job Scheduler. Deploying new databases is very simple with things like BACPAC. You don't have to do all the scripting for the database, then all the tables, keys, etc. It takes all that out of your hands.

One thing I don't like about SQL Server is the way they've set up security with users and groups. It just doesn't seem that intuitive to me. Adding some more explanatory information might help some. Sometimes the documentation is a little thin, but the same could be said about a lot of products.

I've been using SQL Server on and off since it first came out in the 1990s. Most of the people I've worked for are SQL Server shops.

I can't really speak intelligently about that because I haven't been on any of the real big ones yet. 

The complexity of the initial setup really depends. Obviously, you're going to need to know a few things and there are different ways to do deployments. I like the BACPAC, which is one of the features that come with SQL Server. It's a nice feature to deploy. BACPAC really handles all of the configuration for you. If you use that, I don't think you really need to know too much. If we're talking about a small database that holds a few thousand records, it doesn't matter what you're doing. You can't make a mistake because it's just not big enough.  

We do a lot of Azure-based on-demand type systems where we host the system or we host it in Azure. We do the work for them. So we don't really do a lot of those installs.

We're going a lot heavier into Azure and we're going to be dealing with lots of volume because insurance data is pretty voluminous. I think some of our clients don't like the idea of having one gigantic VM system to run the database. That's one reason why they're switching to Snowflake. We had to do some SSRS stuff in the past, and I think they're moving over to Power BI mostly.

I'd probably rate SQL Server nine out of 10. I don't think I'd give anybody a 10, but I think nine's about the best I can do. In my experience, it's been reliable and easy to use.

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.

We use SQL Server as a relational database mostly for the application backend activities and integrations.

The SQL Server is low maintenance, it does not require advanced technical skills to maintain or use it as you might in other similar database solutions. You need some knowledge on how to access the solution and how to query it but it is fairly straightforward.

SQL Server could improve by enhancing the integration abilities, adding more inbuilt data security features, and simplifying the maintenance.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

SQL Server is stable.

The solution is scalable and flexible.

We have approximately 15 people using the solution in my organization.

The technical support from Microsoft is good but we have learned and received the most help from the online community.

The installation difficulty level depends on the use case and environment. For example, if you need to deploy it on multiple nodes or have large amounts of storage it could increase the difficulty level. 

We have a team of approximately five database administrators and application developers who handle the setup and maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for the use of SQL Server and we are on an annual subscription.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.