SQL Server Reviews

I use SQL Server for my SharePoint environment.

It offers exceptional performance and robust stability, ensuring a highly secure environment.

The most valuable feature of SQL Server is that it is easy to set up.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing for SQL Server.

I have been working with SQL Server for ten years.

I am working on the most updated version.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

I plan to increase my usage in the future.

I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It is easy to install.

There is a return on investment. The cost benefits are good.

The cost associated with SQL Servers is on the higher side.

While there are other options available such as Oracle Database, Firebird, and MySQL, we specifically chose SQL Server to fulfill our needs for Microsoft services.

We opted for SQL Server as our scalable server solution to meet the requirements of our Microsoft services.

It's a good solution.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

SQL Server is used to establish secure storage and protect databases from potential vulnerabilities, including those originating from Slack.

The most valuable aspect is the ability to use jobs and various functions to accomplish specific tasks, which cannot be achieved with standard procedures alone. This allows for a combination of features and functionalities to be employed.

I have experience working with SQL Server 2016 and older versions, including handling JSON data. Initially, I found the JSON capabilities to be less helpful, but over time, they have greatly improved. 

SQL Server now offers extensive capabilities for working with various forms of data, particularly when communicating with text, such as in JSON format. 

I particularly prefer working with these features on Azure, as it provides numerous possibilities, especially in the field of business intelligence (BI). Additionally, the serverless platform offered by Azure is highly beneficial and makes tasks easier to manage.

I have not seen significant returns thus far, but I am eager to enhance my experience by transitioning to work in Azure. This shift to Azure is something I am motivated to improve upon.

I have been working with SQL Server since 2018.

We have not had any issues with the stability of SQL Server.

Scalability is dependent on memory.

The matter at hand pertains to whether we are discussing an issue in general or specifically in the context of on-premises environments. However, it is clear that memory and capacity are significant factors in both scenarios. 

Proper management of memory and capacity is essential to ensure smooth system operation and prevent any performance or stability issues. 

As a result, it is essential to handle these issues completely and appropriately in order to meet the system's requirements.

I have not contacted technical support.

The installation process is not complex, but it requires attention to detail in terms of selecting the necessary services and configuring the Cisco server. 

This ensures a proper setup and a tangible model for effective management. While it may not be complicated, it is important to choose the appropriate features during installation. 

Working with ID was not my primary focus; however, I have had the opportunity to work with it for several companies.

It can take an hour to an hour and a half to deploy.

Maintaining it is more challenging than the initial setup. One of the main concerns is ensuring sufficient memory allocation. The default capacity is typically set around sixty, but it can be increased if needed. If there is insufficient memory, it can lead to server downtime and cancellation of transactions, as exceeding the memory limit poses a risk. Therefore, it becomes crucial to address this issue by allocating more memory resources. Additionally, backups and restores play a significant role in ensuring data safety and recovery in case of any issues.

For a brief period, approximately one year before 2018, I had experience working with the open-source version of SQL Server. During that time, I found SQL Server to be the preferred choice, in my opinion.

I developed an application for specific purposes related to McDonough. Using Microsoft SQL Server, I constructed the entire database and implemented supporting stored procedures. This application was commissioned by the European Union to enhance government institutions and similar entities.

Additionally, I worked on financial-related stored procedures specifically related to Serbia Card, as part of a project for the USA.

We acted as a subcontractor for S&P within your company. I have extensive experience in SQL Server, particularly within the Microsoft environment.

They should think twice before they do anything and double-check. Definitely.

I have explored different options such as SonicWall and open-source solutions, but my preference lies with SQL Server. I find SQL Server to be fantastic, as it provides comprehensive functionality and makes tasks incredibly easy. 

Working with Postgres is also simpler compared to other databases like Oracle. Perhaps my familiarity with Excel has made SQL Server more intuitive for me. While I understand that Oracle is known for its complexity, I appreciate that its code and syntax bear similarities. 

Overall, I have a strong affinity for Microsoft products.

I would rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

We developed a product for banks and we store the data in SQL Server.

SQL Server has good performance, but it could be better.

I have been using SQL Server for a couple of years.

The stability of SQL Server is very important for us because we provide services for banks. The banks need a secure and stable solution from us and we have requested from the cloud provider to give us this level of service.

We have approximately 10 developers and architects using SQL Server. Additionally, we have approximately four end-users using the solution.

The support from Microsoft has been good.

I have previously used Oracle.

The initial setup of SQL Server is not complicated. 

We have four technicians that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required to use the solution and I am satisfied.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We have a few transitional systems in our large company that we maintain with Microsoft SQL Server.

SQL Server is similar to other Microsoft products, such as BI, they are easy to use. You do not need to have an expensive BD to maintain them. All the useful intuitive features you find in Microsoft solutions you will find in SQL Server.

I have used SQL Server within the past 12 months.

SQL Server is stable. However, every product has limitations. It is stable for a certain amount of workload. Beyond the capabilities of this solution, you will need other data solutions, such as Oracle. A solution that is more secure.

Since this is a relational order system, scalability has a limit. If your system is very big, you need bigger servers and you have to spend more money. We scale a system up to a certain level, and then we move or shift data to the warehouse, which is NoSQL. We then do not have any bottleneck in scaling. For using this technique we are happy with it.

It is hard to tell or count how much data we are using because being one of the leading companies in Bangladesh, we have many teams who work on it. Different teams work on many different technologies.

We have not had an issue with the scalability SQL Server.

For databases, we have used a lot of data tests with other solutions, such as Oracle. We have used all Oracle data, Postgres, and a few others.

The initial setup is very straightforward. You do not have to worry about the management of the SQL Server instance.

To scale the solution there are additional costs.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are consultants and users of this solution and we deploy both on cloud and on-prem. The primary use case of this solution is for its Health Check feature. I'm the company owner and CIO.

We assist companies to improve the performance of their servers. We're generally able to improve performance by 40%. 

I like the Always On tool which improves the SQL server availability. We cross-link servers with Oracle, MySQL and other platforms using PolyBase as a service to join with big data systems like Spark.

I think the treatment of database storage could be improved. There is also an intermediate locked file that prevents users from inserting or writing something in the database that slows things down. I'd like to see the Perform Volume Maintenance Task made available for locked files. It would mean that the SQL server can directly grow files. Without it, you have to go to the local system account, which can disrupt users. It's connected to the local security policy. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

This solution has fantastic stability. 

The scalability is great, and you can use several servers concurrently without using duplication services. Our company is small but we manage around 30,000 users. We have 10 people involved in maintenance and deployment. 

We are part of the Microsoft team in Spain and sometimes we have to call support with a specific question but not very often. In the past 12 months I've only made contact a couple of times. 

I previously used Informix DB because Linux was not the best tool for enterprise when I began working in the industry. Microsoft was working on new technologies and when they came out with SQL I switched to it. I've had the certification on SQL for several years already. 

The initial setup is relatively easy but it depends on the situation, and sometimes requires some planning. You can configure SQL after you've deployed on cloud. Implementation can take some time because it's not just the installation of the SQL server which can be done in less than an hour. The implementation of the database systems can take several days or weeks depending on the organization. Our consultants have more than 12 years of experience working as DBAs, so we carry out the installation. 

In a standard package, you need to buy two core packs. If you need four core packs the price is around € 8,000. There are more options in the cloud where fees are around € 60 a month. The cost is scaled and if you're deploying in the cloud you need to buy a machine infrastructure as a service. We only sell the license across the cross solution provider (CSP) program. If you have less than 25 users, you can buy an SQL standard per server license where the cost is around €1,200 approximately.

I rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

We use the latest version.

Most SQL Server applications come with package applications from the shelf. This means that when one buys an application, most of these applications work with SQL Server as a basis. They add SQL Server as a database to applications which come with it that one buys. As such, I don't see many people developing new applications with SQL server.

A valuable feature of the solution is that it is comparatively simpler to manage than Oracle. Now that the Linux version is an option, this can be taken into consideration, since Windows limited one's use to things which could only be done in Windows. 

Database support could be improved. Oracle provides better support. 

While the price of the solution is comparatively cheaper, people are paying to Microsoft, in any event, for other things that they're using. 

Thoughs the licensing cost could be cheaper, this depends, as there is nobody who only uses the database with Microsoft. Every company has Windows, Office, Active Directory and all the security features of Microsoft. This means that, overall, when one buys these licenses together, he also gets the database. The focus is not on the price of the database, but what is actually being paid to Microsoft. 

The licensing price could be better, more user-friendly. Things should be be moved from the enterprise to the standard edition. 

As with Oracle, we have been using SQL Server for a long time. They actually have the same shelf life. We have been using the solution for around 30 years. 

The support does not reflect how Microsoft used to be. It can depend. Oracle has a much more sophisticated database, so it comes with expanded support. There are many solutions which come out of the box, as all the problems which could arise have already been encountered by the customers. This is why they are building a big data, to have a ready answer for any issue which may arise, the answer being very quick and straightforward. 

When it comes to Microsoft, noone delves deep, so such problems as those arising with Oracle are not encountered. Oracle is much more sophisticated and comes with many problems. This is why the solution comes with better support, as they have already provided a foundation for many of the solutions.

We did not use a solution prior to SQL Server, with the exception of, maybe, Access. 

The installation is good. 

It took very little time, a couple hours. 

Installation can be done on one's own. Everything can be done sequentially, from one thing to the next. 

While the price of the solution is comparatively cheaper, people are paying to Microsoft in any event for other things that they're using.

Although the licensing cost could be cheaper, this depends, as there is nobody who only uses the database with Microsoft. Every company has Windows, Office, Active Directory and all the security features of Microsoft. This means that, overall, when one buys these licenses together, he also gets the database. The focus is not on the price of the database, but what is actually being paid to Microsoft.

The licensing price could be better, more user-friendly. Things should be moved from the enterprise to the standard edition.

Microsoft is fine. They have done a good job.

As everyone has a station with Microsoft installed, everybody is making use of it. When it comes to the database, this depends on the application. As I said, we are talking about a package solution, so use of the same application could consist of several hundred people or thousands. 

I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten. 

SQL Server is enterprise database software. It provides the back end for any number of different applications, including web applications, and other types of internal applications, and software-based applications. It also provides a back end for enterprise backup tools. It's incredibly diverse in terms of its use case.

Scalability, cluster ability, ease of use, ease of implementation — these are all great. 

In terms of exceptionally large databases, it doesn't scale as well as Oracle. It scales excellently and it's flexible and it can provide a solution for exceptionally large databases, but it doesn't work as well as Oracle does for this particular use case. The performance starts to drag in the case of exceptionally large databases; especially where there's a lot more feature functionality. With Oracle, there's a lot more tunability.

I have been working with this product for 20 years. 

It's exceptionally stable. The ease of implementation and the ease of use can't be beaten. I think it's outstanding overall.

Scalability-wise, it's outstanding. The one limitation it has is that at the very, very high end of petabytes-sized databases, it doesn't scale as well as Oracle. Still, you're not going to run into very many exceptionally large databases. Almost 100% of the use cases for it scale very well.

Technical support is available for a separate cost. If you don't have a subscription or a support contract, then you don't get support. You'll be stuck with online forums — that's how you'll have to get answers to questions. Assuming you have a support contract with Microsoft, it's outstanding.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

This solution is available at a much lower price point than Oracle. Plus, it includes 99% of the same feature functionality. I'd say it knocks ROI out of the park.

If you're interested in using this product, make sure that you have a good understanding of best practices for database implementation. Make sure to incorporate them in your deployment right off the bat. You won't want to have to go back and have to take production databases down because you have to change the configuration, post-implementation. Make sure you get all of these things done, pre-production implementation.

They've come a long, long way in the 20 years I've been working with them. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a rating of nine.

SQL Server is used as database software. People who are using .NET and Windows-oriented tools prefer SQL Server.

It is easy to manage for the administrator. It is also easy to use for applications that are Windows-based.

It is a very stable product, and it has got backup and recovery tools.

Its security can be improved. When you look at the Windows environment, it isn't the most secure environment. It is exposed to so many attacks. They continuously need to improve the security of the platform on which it sits.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years.

It is very stable.

It is pretty scalable. You can scale your machine and nodes. Instead of using just one node or one server, you can use multiple servers and then cluster them together for failover and performance. You can also do replication across sites. Currently, we have around 50 users.

We have got support from Microsoft. They are very quick at resolving issues. They are quite good.

We were using different products. 

It is easy to install. It might take 20 or 30 minutes to install.

I installed it myself.

Its price is fine. You have to buy the license and support.

We compared it with Oracle and MySQL. We got a lot of dev inputs, and we also looked at the vendors supplying the solutions. We found SQL Server to be the best and chose it because of the vendor.

I would recommend this solution to others. We would definitely keep on using this solution.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.