SQL Server Reviews

I like that it's a cloud solution, is simple to set up, and is simple to use.

We are also totally satisfied with the stability and scalability of SQL Server.

It would definitely be better if SQL Server were free. 

I've been using SQL Server for two years.

It's a cloud-based solution.

We have had no issues with stability.

It is scalable, and we have had no issues so far.

The initial setup is straightforward and is comparable to that of PostgreSQL.

We pay per second of usage, but there are different offerings of the license.

We evaluated Oracle and PostgreSQL.

For people who would like to use SQL Server for specific use-cases, I would definitely recommend it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution at eight.

We use SQL Server for collecting and storing our data.

I like that it's relatively stable.

It would be better if it had more integration with other systems.

I have been using SQL Server for over five years.

I think it's scalable.

It's relatively stable.

Technical support is good. When I have a problem, they're responsive.

I've tried to do the initial setup, and I don't think it's that easy. But I think the configuration is normal.

I set up and deployed this solution myself.

I would recommend this product to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server an eight.

The solution is used for database management.

I have found that SQL Server works very well in the Microsoft Dynamics environment.

There is room for improvement in performance when managing a large quality of data and a high number of active users. 

I have been using this solution for approximately 17 years.

I have found the stability great.

The scalability is very good. We have five people in my organization using this solution in my organization.

I have used previously Oracle MySQL, IBM DB2, and SAP HANA. They are better suited for large-size data management.

We have approximately 15 people handling the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

The solution is on a pay-per-use pricing model.

I would strongly recommend this solution to others wanting to implement it in a Microsoft environment.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are using it for accounts payable and accounts receivable automation. We make accounts payable and accounts receivable solutions, and we're using SQL Server as one of the building blocks.

It is integrated with Microsoft tools.

The stored procedure integration with our development could be better. Things are always changing very fast at Microsoft, and it takes a lot of resources to get on top of it. We're struggling with version control.

In terms of new features, we don't have any feature requests. We are not focusing on the database.

I have been using SQL Server for 17 years.

Its stability is okay.

Its scalability is okay.

Their technical support is okay.

It is something we have been using for a lot of years. If we're paying, it should be reasonable.

I would recommend looking at other solutions. You can also look at the Azure SQL implementation because it is easier to start with.

I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

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.

It is used for many things. We primarily use it for our two-tier and three-tier applications.

It is stable, and it works okay.

It would be nice if they can reduce its price.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is stable.

I didn't use their technical support.

I have used Microsoft Access.

Its installation is straightforward. It took half an hour to one hour.

I can install it myself.

We did a one-time payment. Its price, in general, can be reduced.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

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.