SQL Server Reviews

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.

We have found there are many useful features such as the solution is continually being upgraded, ETL capabilities for extracting and transformation, and it is very easy to use.

The solution has been really stable in my experience.

We have approximately 20 to 30 users of the solution in my organization here in Colombia, Mexico.

The initial setup is simple.

The price of the solution could be reduced, it is expensive.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

Its speed and the ease of server management are valuable. If I compare Microsoft SQL Server to MySQL, what I like in Microsoft SQL Server is the speed. We are using Microsoft Management Studio for managing our Microsoft SQL Server, and the user interface that I get to work with is also better.

There should be more tools and documentation for tuning the performance of Microsoft SQL Server. It would be nice to have more tools for tuning because currently, all the tuning that we have to do with our databases is almost manual. We have to read a bunch of knowledge base articles, and this information should be better documented.

Its free text search should also be improved. It is quite important for us. Currently, we're developing our own free text search because of the lacking flexibility in Microsoft SQL Server. Therefore, we're kind of using elastic search and making different implementations in order to reach our targets. Using just the native free text search of Microsoft SQL Server is not enough for us. It should have more flexible features as compared to the current version.

I have been using this solution for more than 15 years. Our clients are using its multiple versions, starting from SQL Server 2012.

It is stable.

In general, it is scalable, but we are only using the single-server mode. We are not using any kind of clustering. Therefore, I cannot say anything from my personal experience about the scalability of Microsoft SQL Server.

I do not have any experience with Microsoft support. We either use in-house knowledge professionals or third-parties for consulting services.

Its initial setup is quite straightforward. A major upgrade is a bit more complicated. We had some issues with the upgrade.

I would recommend this solution. It is a good choice in terms of price and quality.

I would rate Microsoft SQL Server an eight out of ten.

• Net integration is best for me
• Better optimizer
• Ease of use (admin tools)

We used this to solve many complex problems.

Overall, trying to make over with Oracle, it can be improved in usage for high data migration companies of large scale.

I have experience using both the versions of SQL Server 2008, 2012 for more than two years.

Never had issues with stability, may be we were handling structured data well.

No, federal vs clusters approach explains you well that you can search for them.

Technical support rating would be around a seven and a half out of 10.

Setup is easy as what we want the database to do for our problems, compared to Oracle latest versions you need to spend more time on the initial setting up where these cannot go wrong with partitioning and indexing and it needs to be perfect.

Go for SQL and compare it with pricing and stability with other Microsoft products.

Definitely yes, with Oracle only if the needed situations cannot be met, mostly it covers better.

Best practices are the always a better choice for implementing the solution, hire a good expert and consult a better person with huge experience in architecting database systems for decades.

SQL Server Migration Assistant for Access (AccessToSQL).

We migrated loads of access database into large scale SQL server.

Access validation rules and expressions need improvement while converting into SQL Server.

I've been using it for 10 years, and was using previously older versions and now I'm on the latest one.

We just needed to upgrade Windows.

It was average.

It was average.

I previously used Oracle 11G, I switched because of less hardware resources were needed to run heavy software.

It's straightforward to do providing you've read the manual.

We did it in-house.

It's beneficial in terms of what the business gains from it.

It's average to purchase.

We also looked at Oracle 11G.

First look into scalability issues before adopting the right product.

• Effectiveness in a production environment
• New features test

Besides that, SQL Server has become very expensive like Oracle. Its stability delivers performance and usability.

• SSMS
• SSIS
• Reporting services
• FCI clustering
• AlwaysOn
• Basic availability groups.

I would like a mature real-monitoring built in into SSMS, even a trace file analyzer.

We are business consults. We use SQL Server to ensure that critical applications remain operational by performing BCM activities across application and database servers.

SQL Server has scaled as per our requirements.

I would like to see improvements made to the stability of SQL Server, as well as more analytics requirements.

From a restoration perspective, I have been working with SQL Server for a few years.

The stability of the SQL Server needs improvements.

We have over 2,000 users in our organization.

I have contacted technical support, and overall my experience with technical support was okay.

The installation took a few days to complete.

We have a team of three or four admins to maintain this solution.

We had assistance from an integrator.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

We were evaluating other solutions for a specific requirement in our organization. The requirement is now complete.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

The main use of this solution is to control and manage data storage information.

I would like the SQL Server to be able to provide cloud support. We use the solution with a Korean provider supporting only MySQL rather than Microsoft SQL Server, which would be preferable and cheaper. This would prevent us from having to pay for troubleshooting and hosting the server.

I have been using the solution for approximately two years. 

The solution is stable. 

I find the solution not to be scalable. 

There are approximately six people in our company using SQL Server.

I have not needed to contact technical support.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I did the implementation of the solution myself, it does not require any consultants or integrators.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.