SQL Server Reviews

Microsoft SQL Server is a database application, meaning it acts as the backend system for help with the backend data repository system. It concerns itself with every activity that happens at the front end of the database in Microsoft SQL Server. ERP Microsoft solutions is one reason that the SQL server has compatibility. The management of Microsoft SQL Server is actually quite easy. It has a GUI interface and enables a person to do whatever is required at the command line level. It functions as a repository for storing one's data in the relational database. 

The Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition have certain limitations. While the latter is clearly more expensive than the former, it would be nice to see some of the features in the Enterprise Edition be moved to the Standard Edition. This will encourage many more people to use that solution.

If we were discussing the 2000 edition in respect of the SQL Server, I would probably cite security and performance as issues. However, nowadays, when it comes to an application connected to their databases, there is no real difference between MS SQL Server and Oracle. As a consequence, it would be nice to see the application be made more cost-effective. I am aware of much database self-management in respect of Oracle. I know that the last time a colleague of mine used this solution in California, he informed me that the application itself was managing the database.

At present, the solution uses the older connection and the schema is designed in such a way that it can actually provide a very low level of virtualization. Since the security is also hierarchical within the system, they've really done a very good job. 

This said, I would like to see the database become fully automated.

I have been using SQL server for a couple of years, since day one. 

The solution is stable and it has remained so over the years. I've worked in different organizations, such as the banks here in Lagos. Straight off the bat, I've been using Microsoft SQL Server 2000. We currently use Microsoft SQL Server for our ERP needs. How one designs his tables is important. As the team leader, it is my job to ensure that the functioning is as it should be. The application is pretty straightforward. 

Since we can automate most of our tasks, it means that the management is very easy. We can have jobs for our backups. The solution grants us the ability to perform database housekeeping tasks.

The solution is very scalable.

It's been fun dealing with technical support. Generally speaking, they have shown a willingness to handle issues we may have. 

The solution demonstrates performance and this is going well for the moment. 

In consideration of its performance, I rate SQL server as a nine out of ten. 

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.

We primarily use the solution for non-management processes.

The product is very good at centralizing information.

The solution has very good features related to timezones.

The product is quite stable.

If you need to, you can scale the solution very easily.

The solution has legacy issues when it comes to compatibility. If you have older technology, you may run into compatibility problems with SQL.

The solution is rather expensive.

I've been using the solution for over a decade. It's been a long time. At this point, it's been about 12 years or so.

The stability of the solution is excellent. We don't run into any issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's fairly reliable.

The solution scales well. if a company needs to expand its SQL server, it's not a problem to do so.

We do plan to continue to use it going forward. I'm unsure as to if we have plans to scale it, however.

I don't have too much information on technical support, however, it's my understanding that if you need it, it is available.

We did not previously use a different solution. We've only ever really used SQL.

The initial setup isn't too complex. It's pretty straightforward, especially if you are setting up the cloud. It's very easy to provision. It requires fairly typical knowledge. If you are familiar with Windows software, you'll find that there isn't much of a challenge to the setup. I'd say it's not overly technical.

Deployment is fast. You can have it up and running in an hour or sometimes less.

You need about two people to handle the deployment of the solution.

I handled the implementation myself. It's pretty easy, and not too technical, and therefore I didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

You do need to pay for licensing in order to use the solution. It is a little bit expensive, however, it's not the most expensive option on the market. It's cheaper than the competition, however, as I mentioned, it's still pretty pricey.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the client.

We're using the latest version of the solution currently.

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I'd recommend this product to other organizations.

Overall, we've had a positive experience with the solution. I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for many tasks. We use it as a data warehouse. However, we also use it for workflows and processing jobs.

The analytics are pretty good.

As a data warehouse and storage solution, it's quite good.

It's easy to put the data back onto the SQL Server or Oracle. 

The solution is pretty fast. We find it to be responsive.

There are a lot of services, such as the SSISS, SIS, and SSI's that work quite well.

The solution could use better governance on the management side, especially around data governance.

The product could do better at allowing for integrations. 

I've been working with the solution for many years. It's likely ten to 15 years at this point. It's well over a decade, so I have some long-term experience with the product overall.

The scalability for the solution is good, at least where it concerns the cloud. Using the cloud makes everything very easy to scale. On-remises, if you run out of dick space, it's a bit difficult.

We've been in touch with technical support in the past. We manage the data center ourselves, however, if we run into issues we know we can contact them for assistance. I'd say we are quite satisfied with the level of support we get.

I can't recall how the initial setup was. It was a while ago. We've had the solution for a very long time.

We're just customers and end-users.

I don't know if I would recommend the solution per se. There are other options out there. Something that is a NoSQL database. Something like Snowflake, for example, might be a very good option for data warehousing. They are more adept at handling different types of data.

You shouldn't have to create tables or systems, you should just be able to query files.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. However, for the current scenarios we have, there are other options that may be more suitable. It's not the only product available on the market, and the competition is quite good.

We primarily use the solution as a backend server.

There are a few applications of the Oracle product for our data sitting on the SQL Server as well. 

It's useful as a backend server.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

The stability of the product needs to be improved. It's really not stable enough.

In Microsoft, the Active-Active options are not available. There are a lot of requirements that are coming right from the customer, which may not be provided by Microsoft. There are a few use cases where we do need the Active-Active options instead of Active-Passive, yet those kinds of options are not available for Microsoft.

We've been working with the solution for going on five years.

We've struggled with the stability of the product. We'd like for it to be more stable and reliable. 

The scalability is very good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

We are a customer and an end-user.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. While the scalability is there, the solution is lacking a few aspects that customers really need.

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.

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.

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.