SQL Server Reviews

Very pleasing and satisfying experience.

• Used to create queries
• Implemented store procedures
• DBA can also use this effectively.

• Used to create queries
• Implemented store procedures
• DBA can also use this effectively. 
• Reduces other manual work.

• Creating and executing SQL queries, transactions, ACID properties
• Creating and implementing stored procedures.

Every good tool has its own limitations. 

• First of all its cost. It is very high. 
• We need a good amount of RAM to properly use this. 
• Sometimes, query sticks in between. 

But our organization provides great RAM, so we don't have any issue with its speed.

No.

It's good.

No.

Go for it. Thumbs up.

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.

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. 

Typically, the SQL Server is used in many, many ways. We primarily use SQL Server when there is a data requirement for our projects.

Typically there are uses around where you are creating a database. I've yet to store the data in our RPA server. We need MS Excel through Microsoft.

Any sort of  RPA process where you require data through housing data or using a database, you need an SQL Server.

The solution is extremely stable. The performance is reliable.

The scalability of the solution is very good.

Technical support is pretty good. they are prompt in their responses.

You do need to have technical knowledge in order to install the solution. It's not something a layperson can do.

The scalability can always be improved.

I've been using this solution for a number of years now. It's been a while. I have some experience with it. 

The stability of the product is very good. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It doesn't give us any trouble.

The solution is very capable of scaling. A company should have no trouble expanding the solution as needed.

You can always add on to the server or make compartments into it.

We have a team of about 200 or more people using the solution.

We do plan to continue using the solution.

We've dealt with technical support in the past. We found that their responses have been prompt. Given their engagement to typical organizations, they do decent work. I would say that we are mostly satisfied with the level of support on offer.

We did not use any other databases prior to SQL. We only use SQL.

The initial setup does take some time. It depends upon how you are establishing the server in your environment and depends upon the firewall of your organization. It is a lengthy process, however, it is not that grueling. Depending upon the firewall of your organization, it does take time. That influences the time.

I can handle the installation myself. I did not need the help of a consultant or integrator. However, whoever installs it must be somebody who has the technical knowledge. Not everybody can do it.

We have an organizational license.

We are customers and end-users. We do not have a business relationship with SQL.

We are using the latest version of the solution. I cannot recall the exact version number.

I would recommend the solution to other users, companies, and organizations.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.