SQL Server Reviews

We use the product for information systems. This is a must both for us. We use it for our Enterprise Portal.

The solution has proven to be very flexible.

The product is quite stable.

Overall, we've found it to be extremely easy to use. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not difficult to implement and the deployment doesn't take too long.

Technical support has been pretty good so far. They are helpful.

It's a good option for those that have a lot of Microsoft solutions in use.

The solution needs to be more secure. It's lacking, compared to, for example, Oracle.

The product needs to work on its scalability. Oracle can scale a bit more effectively.

Sometimes we have some performance issues. It's not like Oracle. Oracle is more powerful in terms of performance. 

I've just been dealing with the solution for a few months. It hasn't been too long just yet.

We've had some performance issues overall. It's something that's a pain point for us. They need to work on their capabilities in this regard.

The solution could be more scalable. Oracle scales better for companies that need to expand.

We have two to three customers that use the solution currently.

We've used technical support in the past. They've been helpful and responsive. We haven't had any issues when we deal with them. We are quite satisfied so far with the level of service we receive when we reach out. 

I've also used Oracle in the past. From my side, Oracle is more technical and is more scalable, and more secure than the SQL server.

The installation is quite straightforward. It's not overly difficult or complicated. I found it to be quite simple.

The deployment is rather quick. It took us about one hour, from what I can recall.

We just need one technical person to handle the implementation and maintenance processes. 

Customers do have to pay to use the solution. They tend to pay on a yearly basis. 

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

I'd recommend the solution to other customers, users, and companies. It's a good option of r many. Sometimes the customer is Microsoft-oriented and sometimes they are Oracle-oriented. If the customer is already using a lot of Microsoft products, SQL just makes sense. 

It is used for everything under the sun. We're currently using it for a health pass for a medic aid information management system. It is also used by companies in banking and retail.

We are using SQL Server 2014 on Windows Server 2012 platform, and we also have SQL Server 2016 on Windows Server 2016 platform. I have primarily worked on the hardware, but I am now also working in the Amazon AWS cloud.

The entire solution that we're deploying is built on Microsoft SQL Server as a database engine. Our solution is completely engineered for that, and if we attempt to deploy it in any other database engine, it is going to be a huge nightmare.

Microsoft SQL Server is one of the better database administration software packages out there. It runs primarily on Windows Server platforms, but it can also run on Linux platforms.

Primarily, the data replication and the backup areas can be improved. It should have data replication capabilities and uptime capabilities.  The native SQL Server Backups take more time than do the backup processes from LiteSpeed, and the backup compression is a little less.  

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.5, which came out about 30 years ago.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can run the database engine on the C drive, or you can run it on a large cloud array or a disk array. Currently, we just have developers and testers accessing it.

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you know how to set it up, it is easy, but you have to learn that over time. For a new user, it is detailed. You need to have the right things in place at the right time before you actually install the software.

To create an instance, it takes about an hour overall. This includes deploying the basic system, applying the latest service pack, and then applying the latest cumulative update.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, the number of staff members required would depend on the implementation. It requires coordination amongst teams. It is a team effort. The database administrator creates and runs the jobs that create the backup file. You need to have somebody for copying the backup files to offline storage. You also need to have system administrators for setting up the hardware.

I would advise others to just be familiar with Windows concepts.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. If you're familiar with Windows concepts, it just works.

I use this solution as our data warehouse. 

We use the reports, data analysis, and for connecting our databases to multiple resources.

It's a flexible solution.

The installation process should be simplified.

The configuration could be easier.

I have been using SQL Server for a couple of months.

It's a stable solution. We have no issues with the stability.

We have 10 users in our organization who are using this solution.

We have a team made up of engineers, data analysts, and some developers to maintain this solution.

We have plans to increase your usage.

We have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I was using MySQL.

The installation is not easy, it could be easier.

It can take many hours to configure it.

I completed the installation myself.

It's a bit expensive.

The licensing is expensive.

I would recommend SQL Server to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for data mart and data warehousing. My company is a service company and we provide the professional services for deployment of BI solutions. We are customers of SQL Server and I'm head of data analytics.

This solution is very easy to use, and it's very democratic in the enterprise. A lot of customers use this type of database, and that's why the deployments are very often in the medium enterprise.

I think the scalability of the database could be improved if it could handle increased volumes of data. I'd also like to see improvement in performance when you are loading big amounts of data. Integration with other solutions would be a nice additional feature. 

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable to a point but not for very large enterprise. 

I don't have too much contact with the support at Microsoft, but as far as I know, it's good.

This is a very affordable solution, which is why it's used so widely in the market. I think one of the strongest points of SQL Server is the reasonable cost.

The value of this solution depends on the business case that you're trying to accomplish and company size, and it depends on the volume of data you're looking for and the type of users that you're trying to serve. Basically, it depends on everything that goes with the functional requirements of the solution. If all that works then I would recommend this product.

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

I primarily use it to extract some configuration information for my product - in order to understand how the configuration is done for my base product.

The solution is very easy to use. It's intuitive and easy to navigate. Overall, it's a straightforward product.

You don't really need a learning code to study MySQL. If you know the basics, it's quite easy to use the product. There isn't a high learning curve and you don't have to be overly technical.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The documentation could be much better. It's lacking right now. If there are better help pages, for even complicated queries and stuff like that that would be quite a help for users.

There were times where it was not working all the time, however, that could be due to some issues on our network side as well. I'm not really sure of that, and therefore can't blame the solution. However, I do remember experiences where, when I tried something, it didn't work.

I've been dealing with the solution for seven years now. It's been a while.

For my purposes, I haven't had any issues with stability. I find it to be reliable in terms of performance. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's good.

I don't really use it heavily, basically, my usage is quite small. It's been okay for me for my purposes. However, it's my understanding that it can scale.

We have more than ten engineers that currently use the product regularly.

I've never needed to reach out to technical support from Microsoft, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I don't have any direct experience I can draw from.

The initial setup was not overly difficult or complex. It was quite straightforward. It's a pretty simple process. 

Our team is capable of handling the maintenance internally.

In terms of pricing, I just downloaded it and started using it. I don't have a lot of information on licensing. I can't speak to the costs.

We are just a customer and an end-user. We do not have a business relationship with SQL.

I would recommend the solution to other users. So far, the experience I have had over the years has been a positive one.

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

We are a product-based company, and we use it as part of our product. It is deployed in a public cloud and on-premises.

We use it as part of our product, so it is helpful for us. It is easy to move data across versions, and it holds lots of our internal data for operations.

It is easy to use and very stable.

Its support for JSON should be improved. It does support JSON, but the support is not good enough currently. 

They should also improve the way indexes work. Its performance can also be improved because sometimes it becomes very slow for certain table designs.

It cannot have more than a certain amount of data. As compared to other databases, its capability to handle large volumes of data is not very good.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It has been very stable. We had a very good experience with it.

Scaling is a challenge because you cannot scale horizontally. We've run into a couple of scenarios where we were not able to scale it easily.

Their support is quite satisfactory. They have not been perfect every time, but they have mostly been quite good. They're prompt, but they weren't able to resolve some of the issues.

It is easy to install.

Our IT team handles the installation.

It is expensive.

You should know its limitations. It cannot have more than a certain amount of data.

I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for managing database information from our clients and for testing database access.

I would like to see the integration with other platforms improved in the future.

I have been using the solution for four months.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution to be scalable.

The installation is really easy.

I would recommend this solution to others and we are going to continue using it.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for data storage. We use it for its data warehouse, BI services, and AI.

If you compare the SQL Server with the block storage it's stable and it's working. 

The product has been on the market for over 25 or 30 years. It's an extremely mature solution.

The solution is pretty scalable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, depending on your requirements.

The solution is very expensive. 

Technical support could be faster.

I've been using the solution for many years. It's been a while. It's likely been over ten years or so - a decade or more.

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

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with ease.

Three people are using the solution in our organization.

We've used technical support in the past. However, it's not a very fast support system. For the new Office 365, it's better. This solution still needs to work on support.

For a specific task, we are using this solution. However, for some other tasks, we're using MongoDB, MariaDB, Oracle, or something else. It depends on the task and the solution and the requirements.

The installation is not overly complex or difficult for the most part. The initial setup's level of straightforwardness, however, depends. If you only need an SQL Server, it's easy. If you need a cluster, it's more difficult. If you need a great cluster all over the world, it's more difficult.

I handled the installation myself. I did not need the help of an integrator or consultant.

The solution is expensive. The pricing is different and not really standardized. If you're using it on Azure you pay on your workloads. If you have a separate dedicated instance, you pay for the course. It's different, according to the situation, however, in either case, it's expensive.

We are customers and end-users.

We are using the 2014 and 2019 versions of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations and users. However, if it will work for a company, or if it will work for them in an ideal manner depends on the requirements you have to fulfill as an organization. For example, race cars may be good cars, and great products, however, it's for a specific task. For other tasks, it may not be useful.

I general, I'm quite satisfied with the solution and it does what I need it to do. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.