SQL Server Reviews

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. 

Private Cloud

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.

On-premises

We only use it as a logging solution. We use it as logging for processing our database. It holds records for some systems and so on. That's it.

The solution is stable.

The product is scalable.

The solution is configurable. 

The IT and digital transformation department are a bit fresh in this company that I am working for. They have a lot of plans, a lot of visions. I don't know how are they are going to do the infrastructure. I don't know their vision.

So far, the solution fits the scope of our company. We aren't missing any features. 

The integration could be better. They are not open-source, so the integration with other platforms is not that easy.

The company has been using them for a long time. I newly joined the company two months ago, so I don't know when exactly they start using it.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

You can scale the product. You can increase and decrease the storage as needed. It's very easy.

The amount of users on the solution is anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 users. 

While I've never been in touch with technical support, the administration team has. They've contacted the team in Egypt. I haven't heard of any negative experiences.

I've also worked with Oracle in the past. At this company, since it is an older server, it may have been in service longer. We were using the two databases for two different functions.

I wasn't a part of the installation process, however, it's my understanding that the company handled the installation themselves. 

The administration team has three or four team members. They can handle maintenance tasks and rotate tasks between themselves.

My understanding is that the company handled the installation internally. However, I was only recently hired. 

Any kind of information related to costs or licensing is beyond my scope. I don't deal with that aspect of the solution. I do not know if licensing is paid monthly or yearly.

We are customers and end-users.

Our architecture is divided. There are parts on-premise and parts on Azure cloud. I don't know exactly where the SQL Server sits. 

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

I might recommend it to other organizations. That said, it depends on the solution they need. I've worked on Oracle, I have worked on my Microsoft SQL servers. What would be best depends on the solution they need. However, Microsoft SQL servers are a very trusted product. I would recommend it if someone was asking about it.

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 the solution for nearly all of the services we provide that utilize Windows Server. We use it to provide continuous service and in respects of our mail server. 

We have found the feature that allows us to publish web applications to be valuable. 

We have 20 servers and we use disparate ones for different applications, such as Kaspersky Anti-Virus Server and Windows SharePoint in respects of the surveillance system. 

The solution should be more secure and stable and have better performance, particularly as concerns the endpoint operating systems. I would like to have a better operating system that links the CPU and the RAM efficiently.

For the majority of our servers we have not used other operating systems, although there are certain features or requirements that necessitated their use, such as Red Hat. This was rare. Mostly, we used Windows OS. 

As for the performance issue, we have recently encountered situations in which everything would fail in spite of the CPU and memory being 100 percent operable. 

We have been using SQL Server for 12 or 13 years.

As we have faced problems with the solution in both the past and present, I feel it could be more stable. 

The solution seems scalable to me. 

We have not had experience with technical support and have handled this independently whenever we encountered problems. 

When it comes to the installation of the operating system, we have found it to be easy and user-friendly. 

Our greatest praise for the solution we reserve for its ease of installation and usage. These provide definite advantages. Perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that we have always made use of the solution for nearly every relevant company in South Africa.

While I cannot recall exactly how long the installation lasted, I did recently install endpoint Windows 10 Operating System and this took an hour and a half. 

We were able to handle the installation on our own, as we are well versed in this process when it comes to Windows OS.

On an individual basis, we solely make use of Windows OS. There are between 300 and 400 people in our organization who do so. 

Generally speaking, we do not make use of a technical team for deployment and maintenance purposes and do so internally. There are a maximum of seven or eight people in our organization who are responsible for this. We are talking about technical people who are responsible for the direct installation and configuration of Windows OS and they do not include managers. 

I believe the licensing to be on an annual basis. In 2019 we purchased a three year license. 

We did not evaluate other other options before going with the solution. 

I rate SQL Server as a seven out of ten. 

We use SQL Server with Sage products.

It is used by our finance team and also human resources.

the database management tool is very easy to use and largely meets expectations

As SQL Server could not support the number of connections we desired, we were forced to go with Oracle. This is an area that needs to be improved.

for 04 Years now 

The solution could be more stable

The performance in terms of simultaneous connection must be reviewed.

We do not pay for technical support.

No

The initial setup is time-efficient and can be done independently.

There is no need for developers or managers to deploy and maintain the solution. One or two systems' administrators are sufficient for its deployment.

The deployment is on-premises. We installed the solution on a server and this on the Windows server. The user is provided an application for connecting to it.

great

The licensing involves a one-time fee.

We evaluated Oracle as an alternative.

For my part, SQL Server is aimed at small and medium-sized businesses, I would give it an eight out of ten.

I would not recommend it for a large company that has to support more than 40 simultaneous bi-directional connections to the database

On-premises

I primarily use the solution for the development of various applications, database connections, that I need for projects.

I just use it myself, for assignments. I am a student and am studying the product.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is that it's integrated with the Visual Studio and also with Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio. It's a tool they have and it's quite easy to use and understand. It's the interface for programming for SQL Services.

The solution is very stable.

The solution scales well.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I don't have a deep technical knowledge of the solution. It's hard to discuss features that may be lacking.

The solution could be better integrated with the SQL Server Studio tool.

There are some complexities with the initial setup sometimes as there are a lot of options.

I've been using the solution for two years at this point.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable in terms of performance.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

As a student, I don't yet have plans to increase usage of the product.

I've been in touch with technical support. I contact them to assist with a bug that I detected, that was not really related to SQL Server. It was, however, related to another tool, the Microsoft SQL Server Studio. They responded quickly. I was quite satisfied with their level of support for the most part.

I've also worked with PostgreSQL, and MySQL as well as MongoDB. I found that, in comparison, PostgreSQL was not as easy to use.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. It's very similar to other software products. The Visual Studio is easier, however, it's still mostly straightforward. It could be better integrated with this SQL Server Studio tool. You have to install it separately. If they could be installed together, that would be an improvement in my opinion. While not everyone would use it, the developer would find it a helpful item to have.

It can sometimes be confusing to install by yourself since it does have many options that you need to decide on.

I was able to install the solution myself. I did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant.

You do need to pay for a license in order to use the product.

I'm just an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I'm mostly happy with its capabilities.

I'd recommend the solution to other users. It's a solution that is nice and standardized. We are learning all about it at school and its industry standards make it a good option.

On-premises

We use SQL Server to import data from different source systems. Depending on requirements, you act as the resource and can schedule jobs in the Azure environment. The server can be stopped when not required so there's no cost when it's not being used. We make use of the pipeline to put the data into the SQL Azure environment and extract it to the server. I'm the associate manager.

The best feature in SQL Server is the CDC mechanism for adding data incrementally. Another good feature is the ability to store any type of data in SQL Server, it's a big advantage.

You need to be careful if you have a very large amount of data, because the platform can be degraded if you're not on top of it. Oracle handles that issue better and it's the main problem I have with SQL Server. The performance should be better.

This is a stable product. 

This product is scalable, we have between 20 and 30 users in our company. We'll continue to use this product. 

We haven't needed to contact technical support. If there is an issue we use the different SQL forums and we can easily fix issues. 

The initial setup is straightforward, you can install with basic knowledge. Installation doesn't take long at all, I did it myself. 

There are no annual licensing fees, you pay when you use the product. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10.

Public Cloud