SQL Server Reviews

We are an independent software vendor and users of this product. I'm a company founder. 

The most valuable feature for me is that the database engine is always on.

The solution is lacking a compound index for comparing values as you find in PostgreSQL. SQL Server doesn't support that feature so we need to build binary indexes to be able to compare those compound values. I'd also like to see AI capabilities. Oracle has a cloud solution which maintains its own indexes. If you buy a service from Oracle's cloud system, it keeps track of the queries that you have made to the database and it automatically implements its own indexes. It's such a good optimized database and I'd like to see an SQL Server that maintains its own indexes with AI capability. 

I have an issue with memory support: If you create a table and a third procedure followed by an additional procedure using that third procedure, and then wish to alter the original table with the two dependent objects, you have to drop those third procedures and alter the table and recreate dependencies. Those dependencies make it impossible to work in an online environment. If there's a problem, for example, in your implementation and you have to modify a production system, for example, it can't be done. SQL Server generates DLL files in this instance and you can't change DLLs of a running program. It should be easy for them to solve. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

I have the issue of memory support but the solution is stable. 

For Turkey, the licensing costs are too high. Previously, independent software vendors like us would buy the license from Microsoft and resell to our customers.
For vendors it was half the retail price, but that's no longer possible. Sometimes enterprise companies buying in bulk can get licenses at a better price, but we don't have that and it's impractical for us to sell this solution. 

The solution doesn't have too many surprises and is easy to understand. It's all dependent on the architecture and implementation. Newer products use code-first solutions and I'm not sure people will continue to go down the SQL path. If I were starting my project now, I would have chosen another database. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

We use the solution as a database for saving and managing data and applications.

Most valuable features include: high availability, clustering, save backup and recovery.

Although I am satisfied with the solution, some clients have asked us to resolve technical issues, such as those involving silver solution and replication.

I have been working with SQL Server for four or five years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I am satisfied with the solution's partner support. 

I am  satisfied with SQL Server.

Use of alternative solutions varies with the client involved. Some make use of all that SQL Server has to offer, while others employ everything in Oracle Database. We have managed to resolve any issues they have encountered in the two cases in which they have approached us. 

When examining Oracle or IBM db2, Oracle and SQL Server are generally the prefered products. 

While I find the setup and installation to be easy, others may find it difficult. 

I am only a technician and responsible for the installation, so I cannot comment on the licensing, although there are others in my company who are better qualified to do so. 

The solution is mostly deployed for our clients on-premises. 

We are satisfied with the documentation. 

My advice is that one adhere to the documentation before doing installation. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

We use it

• to capture long distance calls for billing
• as a quoting database
• to redirect phone calls based on customer caller line id.

Ease of use.

• Only one CPU core can be used
• Can’t move a database between servers easily
• Can’t use triggers

The free version is cumbersome to use and maintain. But $5000 for a licence is more expense than the benefit I would get from a licensed version.

No stability issues.

We are capturing 1 million calls per month. The free version can’t scale this much data.

Never used. Google is sufficient.

Postgre has a weird syntax and it is slower than MS SQL. The command line interpeter makes it complex to learn.

MS SQL is the easiest of the three I tried.

A licence might be worth the price to simplify management and speed up searches.

I'm a web developer, and I use SQL for the backend.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its ease of use.

It's a pretty stable solution.

We found it to be quite scalable. 

While using it, we really didn't experience any pain points. It doesn't need any additional features. 

I have a couple of years of experience with the solution so far. 

The stability and performance are good. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's not buggy. there are no glitches. It's pretty reliable. 

The scalability has been good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

I've never used technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been satisfied with its overall capabilities in general.

SQL is our main data store for enterprise applications, all applications that we have in the organization.

SQL could be improved by making all features available on the on-premise version of the product as well as the cloud version. When you buy the on-premise version, it's sort of an inferior product compared to the cloud version, which seems to get most of the latest and greatest features.

I've been using this solution for a few years.

SQL is stable.

This solution is scalable.

I am satisfied with Microsoft's technical support.

The initial setup was ok, it met our requirements.

We implemented SQL ourselves, and it took around a week to install.

Subscriptions are available on a yearly basis.

I would give SQL a score of nine out of ten. 

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. 

We use SQL Server for web application and website development.

The most valuable features of this solution are easy queries and straightforward programming for beginners.

SQL Server could improve by providing something similar to an interface or dashboard where a developer can do debugging, this would make a developer's work easier. Additionally, the optimization could be better. If there was an interface showing information needed for the optimization it would help because there can be some data loss making it difficult to optimize the SQL Server.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good for simple applications. However, the problem with scalability is if the application is too large, it cannot handle it. We have to depend on other database servers. 

I have not used technical support but I have used the open forums online that provide all the information that we have needed. There is a large online community for support. 

The installation is straightforward.

There is a license required for this solution and we pay monthly. The price is reasonable compared to other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I 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.