SQL Server Reviews

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. 

We are using SQL Server for internal development projects.

SQL Server is easy to manage because all our DevOps team are familiar with it and simple to access because it is cloud-based.

The solution could improve by being more user-friendly.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, we have found it to be vertically scalable, but horizontal scaling, we have not used it for this purpose.

We are mostly using this solution for internal use, not for public services. We have approximately 10 developers using it.

My experience with technical support has been an average level of satisfaction.

The installation is easy.

We have one individual that is managing the solution at this time.

For our purpose, we are not required to have a license for what we are using it for.

I would recommend this solution to developers who are familiar with Microsoft's platform. However, for others who work with Linux-based solutions, I could recommend something else.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

Right now, we are using DB2 and the SQL Server. It's really helpful for the replication of data. It's real-time and very easy to use.

The product is very stable. We find it to be reliable.

The scalability is okay. 

The installation is pretty straightforward.

For now, we've found the features to be sufficient. I cannot recall feeling anything is actually missing.

The pricing of the product could be better. They could make it more reasonable or more competitive.

Microsoft's technical support could be better.

We've been supporting these servers for a couple of years at this point. It's likely been about two or so years. We've worked with them for a while. 

The solution is very stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We're happy with it.

The scalability potential depends on the resources. If the resources are enough, we can scale it. For us, it's already enough. However, if a company plans to expand, it should be prepared for that beforehand. 

We have more than ten users on the solution currently.

Microsoft technical support could be improved upon. They aren't the best. They could always be better.

We also use IBM DB2. We support it for our customers.

We have found the solution to be straightforward. It's not overly difficult or complex. A company shouldn't have any issue with implementation.

The product implementation process depends on the needs of the client. For us, deployment was around 30 minutes to one hour. It's pretty quick.

The solution could be priced more competitively. We'd, of course, like it to be lower. Microsoft can sometimes be expensive.

Each customer needs their own license.

We use the solution both on the cloud and on-premises. 

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

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies. They should know that it is very easy to use. 

We had two people that handled the initial setup - an engineer and a manager. It's pretty easy to handle if an engineer is doing the setup.

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.

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. 

The most valuable feature is easy installation. It was very easy to install.

The interface is very user-friendly.

I would like to see more integration with other products and it needs to be more secure.

I have been using SQL Server for two months and I believe that we are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution. It's very stable.

It is a scalable solution.

My installation requires SQL Servers, so I have to continue using them.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, we did not use another product.

The initial setup was straightforward. The installation was easy.

It took two hours to deploy.

I completed the implementation myself.

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

I would rate SQL Server an eight 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.