What advice do you have for others considering SQL Server?

I would recommend the solution to users looking for any form of transactional database or commercial database. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I would recommend using it , but it's best if you already know how it works. Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten.

SQL Server is very secure in terms of login and data protection. Security largely depends on the programmer’s implementation. When data is inputted, it is encrypted to prevent unauthorized access. So, laypeople cannot understand the content of the data. If your organization needs secure data management or is considering migrating your systems to a virtualization platform, I strongly recommend utilizing Microsoft products. They are user-friendly and require no specialized skill level. Microsoft has developed the software to be used for any major and smaller applications. Therefore, its integration is very good in terms of the specifications provided. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Since SQL Server was one of the most commonly used products initially, it was very easy to use. I'm moving away from the solution because there are now better data storage tools. SQL Server was used for the postal service in the Netherlands, where the postal buses on the street were analyzed. SQL Server is always deployed on the cloud. Data recovery and backup are sometimes hard with SQL Server because of the data store size. Based on the data structure, I would sometimes recommend the solution to other users. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use SQL Server Availability Groups for high availability. It supports our requirements well and is preferred over cluster solutions for its effectiveness. SQL Server offers advanced security features like data masking, which allows users to restrict access to specific columns, enhancing data privacy and control. This capability is particularly useful for protecting sensitive information from even database administrators. SQL Server is the primary technology we use, tightly integrated with our existing IT infrastructure and applications. We rely on Microsoft products for seamless compatibility and avoid unnecessary complexity by sticking to a single vendor ecosystem. My recommendation for using SQL Server is that it is a stable and versatile option with a lot of capabilities. However, there are cheaper alternatives available on the internet that offer similar performance. It is essential to consider whether the cost difference justifies the added performance of SQL Server, especially when cheaper options can achieve comparable results with slightly slower hardware. Overall, I would rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten.

Currently, we don't heavily rely on SQL Server for our projects. Most applications are developed for evaluation or quick setup and checking methods. For production-grade deployments, we primarily use PostgreSQL. The database architecture plays a crucial role in data-heavy applications. I've worked with databases, particularly in telecom, requiring extremely real-time operations like quick authentication and seamless data transfer for calls. These use cases demand quick responsiveness and scalability, especially during high-traffic events like sports matches. Scaling up certain database nodes becomes essential to handle the increased volume of data. I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.I haven't personally used the .NET framework, but it seems to be more elaborate compared to Java or Python.

I have limited experience with scaling SQL Server for large datasets. Speaking about the most beneficial for our company's data analysis needs, I don't know the huge range of services offered by Microsoft, like reporting or integration services, which make it easy for the users to deal with database manipulation, integrations, and reporting. The aforementioned services offered by Microsoft are quite user-friendly. The tool covers almost all of the security features for data protection with a variety of access protocols, and the database encryption part covers all the cases in my company. The solution is easy to maintain if you know what exactly you need to do. The people required for maintenance depend on the scale at which the product is used in an environment, but under normal circumstances, one person is required to take care of the maintenance process. My company uses the tool for a variety of integrations, especially with the old legacy systems, which can easily be adapted to SQL Server. With modern architectures and web services, it is also possible to integrate SQL Server with any product in the market currently. Before buying the product, users should check and remember all the licensing parts of the tool since it can be very complex. Users should check very thoroughly for the use case and exactly what prices they need to pay to use it. I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

There were no specific projects for which I used the tool. I conduct classes related to data integration. I need to use some products attached to the data integration area having a Python framework. I wanted to compare the tool with some commercial tools such as Oracle Data Integrator. I recommend the product to those who plan to use it. SQL Servers and Power BI Report Servers can integrate well. I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.

We also have a data warehouse. This warehouse feeds into Power BI for data presentation. Currently, we're in the process of transitioning because we have various teams and solutions in place. The tool serves the purpose of managing all the data within a system. It is utilized extensively for storing, processing transactions, and conducting analysis. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. Its ability to integrate with other products is good. The tool is popular and easy to manage. You can find resources easily to manage it.

Our clients are from small, medium, and enterprise businesses. It helps users to manage their data. I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

I recommend the solution to others. The solution is straightforward to work with. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

It proved to be a great fit for medium-sized enterprises, in terms of the variety of the tools it provides. For bigger projects and specific needs, there might be a need to employ different solutions such as Oracle, and ERP systems. But overall, it works great as a relationship database management system. I would rate it eight out of ten.

To others looking into using a SQL Server, I would say that it goes down to the application that you are developing and what funds you have available to run the total system.

I would recommend SQL Server to others. I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

I would advise others this is a good Microsoft solution. I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. We are satisfied with the product in general. Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

My advice to others would be to create a standard for SQL Server to allow a high level of security. What we did is, we adopted CIS, which is the Center for Information Security, hardening standards and benchmarks to keep it secure. SQL Server out of the box comes with a lot of unnecessary services that can make you very vulnerable to any site attack. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

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.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. If the price was a bit less or the remote access was better, I would rate it tighter. In general, I've been happy with the product.

We currently don't have any issues with SQL Server. There's nothing that we couldn't solve internally, so I haven't had the chance to contact their technical support team. I'm giving SQL Server an eight out of ten rating. I can recommend this solution for medium and large enterprises. For small enterprises, it depends: if they use the standard, free one on Windows, yes. If they don't, I wouldn't recommend the investment.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10. SQL Server is an inexpensive solution. I recommend it if the project isn't sensitive. SQL is similar to Oracle and integrates well with tools in the cloud environment. The difference is that Oracle is for data solutions where there is replication and moderation.

I would recommend this solution for small and medium-sized companies, but for enterprise businesses. I know it's not the best, but this application meets our requirements. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

There is a lot to learn about this solution when first using it, as with any other tool. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This is a great solution for anyone with basic knowledge of DNS who wants to build up a database. There are many videos to help you navigate the platform. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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.

Before implementing SQL Server, you need to learn the concept, design, architecture, and data types of a relational database. You can learn it from YouTube. It is step-based, and you can install it. After that, you can migrate your existing SQL Server to the new SQL Server, depending on the size of the data, data architecture, and data type. I would rate it an eight out of 10 because I'm satisfied with SQL Server. It is working fine.

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

SQL Server is a common product that I use on a daily basis, and I'm using its latest version. Most of my colleagues use it for database work. 200 people use this system in the company. My advice for people looking into using SQL Server is that it's the best choice, especially for those who are beginners with databases. My rating for SQL Server is nine out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It's very useful. I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

I would recommend SQL Server for its stability, scalability, and ease of use. I would rate it an eight out of 10.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

They've been adding a lot of great functionality, and hopefully, they continue down that path. We don't use a lot of the more advanced features at this point, but for what we're doing right now, it's working really great with availability groups and other features. Its usability has gotten a lot better after version 14. There were a lot of great updates after version 14 for SQL or query performance with the engine. I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We are a customer and an end-user. I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. While the scalability is there, the solution is lacking a few aspects that customers really need.

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. We're using the latest version of the solution. I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. If there are people who can't afford MongoDB or if an organization doesn't want to migrate to MongoDB, it's important to keep in mind the users would have to learn the fundamentals of the SQL server first. Knowledge of it is a necessity. I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others, as long is it meets their requirements.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

If a new company wants to implement SQL Server, they need to know that there should be a person who has all the knowledge about DBA position, such as how the SQL Server will be set up because I have a lot of customers and when I checked they have a lot of bad options or practicing in their SQL Servers instance. If someone wants to start with SQL Server, they have to improve and have good knowledge about this technology. It's important to have knowledge about this technology. They should take some courses or maybe have a person who has all the knowledge about this technology with certification, it's the most important. It's not easy to keep up to date with the best practice from a provider, in this case, Microsoft. I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

SQL Server is a good mainstream application that has been around for quite some time, and I like when things are around for a while. I don't like to be the first kid on the block. I remember when Power BI first came out. I waited a year and a half to use it. The big thing for NAV was to get reports. We still use it, but we mostly abandoned it. It's really not working as well as I would've liked. And that reads SQL tables. While that was great, you had to trust the person who wrote it, that it would include all the data you needed. There's a big trust. We often found lots of problems with it, so we decided to just program all these reports inside the application. That worked really well. The thing I don't like is, I know a lot of people don't know about the backend security of SQL. They think others cannot get into their system and I tell them they can, they have the SA password. People are shocked. That's a hole that they should plug. They should plug that and make that more apparent to people. When I did auditing, most clients had SQL based applications, and we'd always say, "Who's got the SA password," and they'd say, "What are you talking about?" Then we would tell them, and there is all this SQL injection stuff that used to happen. I haven't heard of any hacking through the back end in a while. Because you're talking about cybersecurity being so important now, people can hack in and get into the back end, although 99% of cyber is ransomware through email. The risk is probably still low, but I try to close up all the gaps if I can. Clients don't know about this stuff. They don't even know enough to ask. I find a lot of IT people don't even think about stuff like that. I'll ask a client if they back up their data and how often. If they talk to their IT guy? If they say, "Once a night," I ask, "Okay, what if it was the middle of the day and you go down? You lose all your data." I ask if they have ever heard of SQL log shipping. They start stuttering because they don't know how to set it up. It would be great if Microsoft was more up-front about how to do that stuff. It's a great feature. On a scale of one to ten, I would probably give SQL Server a nine. I don't give anybody a perfect score, certainly not in the technology world. Oracle is out there. NetSuite is just giving it away. You have a lot of other applications not running on SQL, like Intacct, who are creating proprietary, non-Microsoft things to come against what Microsoft is offering like interoperability with different applications. They are really pushing a different environment. I think Microsoft is going to win, but Sage is not a small company. We have all these big titans fighting each other.

We're just a customer and end-user. We're not using the latest version. We're probably one or two versions behind. I'd advise new users that you want to know what you're going to use it for. I would say it's more suited to a more midsize or larger company than a mom-and-pop shop - unless they're tying it to some software that uses SQL. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is you have to consider the industry demand and the benefits or advantages of a solution before you choose, for example, Oracle or Microsoft. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I would not recommend this solution. I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10.

I rate this solution 10 out of 10.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. Microsoft's modules are really good. The syntax used for running the query is really easy. Their options for concurrency and locking are good, as well as their prices. They have created separate models such as distribution services and replication services. They are really good options so that if I want to take that service, I pay for it. If I don't want to, then I don't install it and I don't use it. Modular installation is something that I like about MS SQL Server. If you have a lot of knowledge about MS SQL Server, you will be able to handle huge amounts of data very efficiently. However, you should make sure that you have regular backup protection. The servers which you have to purchase for installing, implementing, or managing MS SQL Server need to be optimized in a better way so that you get optimized performance from MS SQL.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

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.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.

I would recommend this solution. I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

SQL Server is my favorite database. Because I've been working on it for so many years, I like it. I have only good things to say about it. I would rate SQL Server nine out of 10.

I'd probably rate SQL Server nine out of 10. I don't think I'd give anybody a 10, but I think nine's about the best I can do. In my experience, it's been reliable and easy to use.

I'm using either the 2018 or 2019 version of the solution. I don' know the exact number off-hand. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a very good solution and I've been pretty happy with its capabilities. I would recommend the solution to other users.

We are customers and end-users. Our architecture is divided. There are parts on-premise and parts on Azure cloud. I don't know exactly where the SQL Server sits. I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I might recommend it to other organizations. That said, it depends on the solution they need. I've worked on Oracle, I have worked on my Microsoft SQL servers. What would be best depends on the solution they need. However, Microsoft SQL servers are a very trusted product. I would recommend it if someone was asking about it.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I'm a customer and an end-user. This solution is one of my favorites and I would rate it at a nine out of ten. I'm very pleased with its capabilities. Microsoft has a freeware option that might be called something like SQL Server Express. I'd advise new users to try to put that one up. It's easy to implement. If you need more data, then buy the correct server. The SQL Server is expensive, however, when you see how nice data is installed and how easy you can get access to it, it may be worth it. If new users need help, they can always go to YouTube to find answers for the freeware. SQL Server has a steep learning curve, however, it's worth it to learn about it and understand it.

I recommend this solution because you can engage in database manipulation, administration and manage almost all your requirements. When compared to Oracle licensing costs, SQL Server is better. On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a ten.

I've used the solution on a couple of deployments and also deploy patches. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I would recommend the solution to other organizations and companies.

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.

I would recommend this solution to others. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We have 10,000 customers. I would recommend the solution to others. SQL Server is good and I rate it as a nine out of ten.

We are customers and end-users. We are using both the latest version and a previous version of the solution. I don't have the exact version numbers on hand. I would advise new users first to get help implementing it unless you know the solution well, as there's so much that it can do. A lot of times you can actually make a little mistake. Say if you're going to go in a certain direction, if you get some advice, you may be much happier going in another direction completely. In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been quite satisfied with its capabilities. It's an excellent product that still has room for growth.

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.

We're a customer and an end-user. I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities. I would recommend the solution, however, it will only be effective if the company hires an effective administrator. While there are default settings, you will likely need to configure quite a bit and connect most of your hardware in the correct way. To be effective, it really needs to be tuned by a professional.

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution to thoroughly investigate if this is the right tool for their use case. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution. However, Oracle has a good reputation for quality that might be a better choice. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

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.

I'm currently using the 2017 version. I am not using the latest version of the solution. In general, I would rate it at an eight out of ten. For the most part, we have been satisfied with its capabilities. I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

I am also a consultant to SQL Server. I usually consult with databases, including the Power BI. I started with data business and now shifted to this. I strongly recommend the solution because we are doing consulting projects using Java applications. I rate SQL Server as a nine out of ten.

We're likely using the latest version of the solution. I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. We have been very satisfied with its capabilities over the last decade. I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies.

I would strongly recommend this solution to others wanting to implement it in a Microsoft environment. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

There are around 15 people making use of the solution in our organization. Every computer processing unit has its own license. I would recommend the solution to other users. I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten.

I'm just an end-user. I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I'm mostly happy with its capabilities. I'd recommend the solution to other users. It's a solution that is nice and standardized. We are learning all about it at school and its industry standards make it a good option.

For my part, SQL Server is aimed at small and medium-sized businesses, I would give it an eight out of ten. I would not recommend it for a large company that has to support more than 40 simultaneous bi-directional connections to the database

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are just a customer and an end-user. We do not have a business relationship with SQL. I would recommend the solution to other users. So far, the experience I have had over the years has been a positive one. I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I would tell potential users that it's important to have a good infrastructure, but my advice is for any database, not only SQL Server. It's important to have a good infrastructure and a good network if you're planning to use Always On and clusters. I believe the most important thing is the infrastructure where the SQL Server will be based. On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server an eight.

You should know its limitations. It cannot have more than a certain amount of data. I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We are customers and end-users. We are using the 2014 and 2019 versions of the solution. I'd recommend the solution to other organizations and users. However, if it will work for a company, or if it will work for them in an ideal manner depends on the requirements you have to fulfill as an organization. For example, race cars may be good cars, and great products, however, it's for a specific task. For other tasks, it may not be useful. I general, I'm quite satisfied with the solution and it does what I need it to do. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

I recommend this solution to others. I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

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.

I would recommend this solution to potential users. If they have their own in-house team, they can manage it very easily. Microsoft is always easy to manage. It's a product where no expert is required for its maintenance. On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a seven.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others and we plan to keep using it in the future. I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

In summary, this is a good product, I plan to continue using it, and I definitely recommend it. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

I would recommend this solution to others and we are going to continue using it. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a rating of nine. It's generally a good product. If you're interested in using this solution, my advice is to do your research. It's a good product, but there are other products available. One of the biggest issues that I have with Microsoft is that they change their products and don't continue to support the old product. We've got some things in Microsoft Excel that are no longer supported. They bring out a new model and they drop support for some of the older features.

We are a Microsoft-based company. I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

I rate this solution a nine out of 10.

SQL Server is a very good product and we use Microsoft SQL Server software that runs on Windows as most of our clients make use of the Windows operating system. But I don't have a hundred percent trust in Microsoft products. Why am I saying that? This is not a security issue. I am just... We are hitting this kind of issue because, as you know, Windows servers sometimes get corrupted or we need to restart them.

I recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10.

SQL's performance is good enough if you have a low amount of data. For those looking into implementing SQL Server, I would advise first analyzing your requirements and whether your system is critical or non-critical. If it is non-critical, go for SQL as it will save you in terms of cost, but if it is critical, avoid SQL as it will bring you down in one day. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

I rate this solution nine out of 10.

You will seldom find a database that was designed correctly. Just because you got a poor-quality database doesn't mean that you're going to get a better database anywhere else. You rarely get to build a thing on your own. Usually, you inherit somebody else's stuff. So, the challenging thing is working with what you have while trying to implement a better solution. My only advice is to be patient. I would rate it a nine out of 10. I wouldn't give anything a 10 because I don't have that kind of knowledge, but right now, it does what I need it to do.

I would recommend it to other users. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

I'm an end-user. I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

My advice to others is SQL Server is a good tool to work with and there are a lot of community resources available to help you out in case you are stuck anywhere. I rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is specific to data warehousing. I would recommend implementing manual partitioning. You'll be able to use the Standard Edition and you'll save money. If you've got plenty of money, implement the database partitioning and pay the extra $10,000 USD per core. With manual partitioning, you'll get 90% of the EE performance for $10,000 less per core. For a 16-core SQL Server, that's a savings of $160,000. Considering SQL Server SE, and what it does for the price, I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

There is also another added product they created, called Synapse, Azure Synapse Analytics. Both of them are similar to Microsoft PowerBI on-prem with SQL Server on-prem. I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There are other competitors that are also doing a very good job as well.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it a seven out of 10.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. I always recommend SQL Server. To whoever asks me, I will say, "Just go for it." The databases are good. In terms of pricing, SQL Server is good. In terms of functionality, it gives you all the basic requirements. You can also integrate it with different applications, which is an advantage.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. My advice is to know your use case and requirements so that you aren't surprised after deciding to get this product and realizing in the implementation that you need much more space. You at least need to make a massive POC to know if the product will give you 100% what you need.

I would recommend this solution to others. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.

My advice to companies that are wanting to implement the solution is they have to make sure that they've have a proper skillset. When you have the proper skillset or people who are certified it would make for a better investment into the product. When you are certified, then you know the system in and out and you should be able to have the best implementation for the type of business you have. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I rate SQL Server nine out of 10. I would recommend SQL Server to anyone because you can use cloud-based services, so it's very beneficial. If you install SQL Server on-premise and on the Azure cloud, it is much more advantageous for you.

It is appropriate for small and medium-sized businesses. I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10. We haven't had any issues, but it depends on the use case. So I would recommend it depending on your use case.

I'm a customer and an end-user. I'm currently using the most recent version of the solution. I'd advise those who wish to use the solution to first practice a bit with it. I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. It's a very solid product. It's very stable. The ease of use is pretty high and the amount of support that's freely available for it is significant.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

I would rate it nine out of 10. Nothing's perfect.

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.

I've been working for a client as a consultant so I'm helping them with deployments. With one client, we're using on-premises deployments. Our client has their own service provider or service operator so they have their own IT partner who is handling their databases. If I have understood it correctly, the databases were on-premises for our client, however, it's a bit complicated when you are having and dealing with large-scale public sector actors in Finland. There are plenty of kinds of players involved. Whether or not I would recommend the solution depends. If you are utilizing some solutions where you need the Microsoft platform-based database, it's completely okay. And if you have, for example, the solutions where you have utilized Transact-SQL or whatever, it's okay. However, if you have this kind of situation where you can make your own choices freely, you have options. And if you're utilizing Java or C, et cetera, quite often the path or logic would go towards some of the databases on the Microsoft side. There is no clear answer. Quite often when you begin to think about your solution or you think about what you are building, the database is the first thing you decide on. There are other factors too, such as a business case or if you're just building from scratch and so on and so on. I wouldn't like to say that I never would recommend it, however, if you are building everything from the scratch and you can make all the decisions, likely it is not the first option you have or I'd suggest. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I am a user of this solution but I don't know that I understand it well enough to recommend it to others because I did not install it. I would rate SQL Server a five out of ten.

I would advise potential users to use SQL Server with Microsoft Azure. I don't recommend managing it locally. On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a seven.

I would recommend this solution to others for small operations. For bigger applications with large amounts of data and a lot of users, I would not recommend it. I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.

We're a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with SQL. While everything is currently on-premises, we're making moves to shift to the cloud. We're using the 2019 and 2016 versions of the product. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. In general, we've been quite happy with its capabilities.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution. However, the customer has to make sure it fits their use case. I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

This is an excellent solution when it comes to databases. I would recommend it to others. I rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

I would recommend this product to new users. On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server an eight.

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.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I have nothing to complain about. I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

I would recommend looking at other solutions. You can also look at the Azure SQL implementation because it is easier to start with. I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. We can't compare this solution with other databases, as we do not have enough experience with other similar tools. Overall, SQL Server is good. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

The solution demonstrates performance and this is going well for the moment. In consideration of its performance, I rate SQL server as a nine out of ten.

I rate SQL Server as a seven out of ten.

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.

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.

I would advise others to just be familiar with Windows concepts. I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. If you're familiar with Windows concepts, it just works.

I would recommend SQL Server to others. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

To others who are interested in using this solution, I would say go for it. It's a stable database that is easy to configure and maintain. I would suggest this solution when compared with other databases. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have any business relationship with the company. We use the express edition of the solution. It was delivered as part of a solution. We are not developers. It was a turnkey solution delivered to us by an integrator, and we are doing some maintenance, however, we are not developing the content of the database. It was used as part of our services for maybe five years or more. The database is on the back end. We are using it with our applications at the front end that we are interfacing with. In terms of the SQL server, we don't go and use it directly. We use it through the application. There's an application that is providing a user interface for us, and we work on that user interface. We don't work on the native interface of the SQL server. Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I've heard that Oracle is better. I'd recommend this solution to other companies.

If you've never done it before, Microsoft has plenty of documentation and online guides to walk you through it. Just take your time, and follow the steps. If you can do it in a virtual environment, it is better because it is easier to start over if you mess it up, but it is fairly user-friendly. If you have questions during the setup, stop and Google it. The information is out there. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten because there is always room for improvement.

The last version we used is 2015 if I'm not mistaken. We don't jump immediately to the latest version due to the fact that, usually, we look for stability. We make the move to the next version in case of some integration or limitation. We prefer not to move onto something that might have bugs or glitches that need to be patched. It's more secure for us that way. I'd recommend the solution to other companies. I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's doing exactly what we need it to do. We've very happy with it.

It is a nice product. You can use it as you want. If you don't know how to use it, you will waste it. Oracle is more powerful than this, but it is great for our needs. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We are customers and end-users. I'm certified in SQL. I have a pretty good understanding of the product. Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. Whether or not it would work well for a company all depends on what purpose it is being used for. However, SQL is simple to use and simple to configure, and very powerful in terms of relational database and the SQL language and functions it comes with. If you configure it well and then use it well, the outcome will likely be very good.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are partners with Microsoft. We use multiple deployment models, and typically those are private cloud or on-premises options. Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been mostly very satisfied with the capabilities of the product. It's fast. It's our preferred product. I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

We will continue using SQL Server for some things but not everything. Most of our applications will be migrated to MongoDB and others. I am not in the position to recommend SQL Server to anybody. Rather, I am more in the area of quality assurance. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We have experience with almost every angle of Microsoft ecosystem that you could imagine. We're a direct customer. We own a MSSQL server. We have it deployed both on-premises and on the cloud, so we use different deployment models. We have distinct instances in the cloud and we have distinct instances in our on-prem. I would warn other organizations to not use their Message Broker and don't rely on their Task Scheduler. Look elsewhere. Go look at Oversource, Rabbit MQ, Azure Message Broker, or something other than what's built into Microsoft's SQL server. That would be my advice. Our original architecture messaging infrastructure was based on Microsoft SQL server's Message Broker. It's been a complete disaster. It's a black hole that can't be diagnosed or supported in terms of troubleshooting from Microsoft when it doesn't work. When it doesn't work, it just doesn't work and no one can answer why. That is very bad. The intended use of it was for enterprise messaging. However, that is not a use case for MSSQL Message Broker, period. We're in the process of moving in a couple of directions. We're going to move to Azure Service Bus as an interim solution, as our current technical capabilities are very Microsoft-centric. Then, the next step will be to move to other more enterprise-class messaging and queuing subsystems like RabbitMQ. The SQL server as an engine probably deserves a very high nine out of ten. It's a very, very efficient relational database management system. And it is very scalable.

It is a first-class enterprise RDBMS and will continue to enjoy favourable sentiment from developers and DBAs.

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is that it is relatively easy to set up. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We always like to work with the best products, we are happy with SQL Server, and I recommend it. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

I would recommend this product to new users. On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft SQL Server an eight.

I'm currently moving away from the solution. I'm an Oracle guy, so SQL Server is new to me. I don't like it. I'm moving away from it. If you're a Microsoft shop, definitely SQL Server is the right solution for you. If you're used to it, it definitely makes sense as an option. It's nice. It works. If you have not seen the other side of things, then you might like it. As long as you're staying in the Microsoft world, it works. However, it's very clunky. From an analytics perspective, a data handling perspective, it is clunky. That is why I decided to go to Tableau instead of Power BI. There are just too many dependencies on the ecosystem. Once you get ingested into that SQL Farm, it's hard to leverage other tools that are disrupting the industry as you're just stuck in that ecosystem. That's an issue with Oracle as well. That's just Microsoft and Oracle. They're pretty much the same. They're an enterprise solution. And there's an advantage when you're inside an enterprise using all these different services, and the tools that they have. There's definitely a huge advantage in that, however, it's limiting. If you look at Tableau Oracle would say, "We have our OBIE" and Microsoft would say that "we have a SSRS." Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the client. We're using the latest version of the solution currently. We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. I'd recommend this product to other organizations. Overall, we've had a positive experience with the solution. I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

Currently, we're just Microsoft customers, although we would like to have a partnership with the company in the future. I haven't done the HA for SQL server yet, therefore, I'm not sure how hard it is and how difficult it would be to implement, or how stable and how scalable it is. There are two markets really. It's Microsoft and non-Microsoft. If anyone is familiar with Microsoft products, then they should go with this, however, they should bear in mind that it comes at a cost. The SQL cost is quite high if a company is using it at a large scale. That said, if a company is looking at something small scale, there is a free edition. I use the standard edition, and it won't cost too much. In any case, for those that aren't tied to Microsoft options, there are a lot of products out there that might be suitable with very little overhead. In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

You need to know the concepts and the business logic before using this solution. It is not straightforward. You need to know what your application needs are and only then you can work on it. You also need to know about the product and how it works. I would probably advise others to move to the cloud version, which is a modern database. If you want to use SQL Server, Azure is the best because you get the hybrid benefits. You can bring your own license, and you can save costs. You can save 55% of the cost. With AWS, you have to buy your license, which makes it expensive. If you are using SQL Server and your company is more on the Microsoft side, Azure is easier, and there is no change in it. You can also get more out of it. You don't have to put a lot of complexity in supporting or administrating it because Microsoft does that for you behind the scenes. Therefore, it is good to move to Azure SQL or to manage instances where you have more control. Both of these are PaaS solutions. There is no need to go into IES. It is better to stay on-premise than on IES because it creates more complexity. This is because you still have to build the servers, and you have to still manage them. If your application is compatible to be used with PostgreSQL or MySQL, you can also move there. It also depends on the kind of talent you have in your company. You have to consider the talent that you have. You can choose other technologies, but you need support from your teams. If they're .NET developers and you have to build the knowledge base, it is smoother to stay with SQL Server because you have to change less on the coding side. I would rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

I'm looking at Firebird. My concentration is Firebird. I understood and researched that Firebird is the best one because it is quite robust, it has already matured, and the developer's community is quite high and stable. I'm just researching whether it can handle the huge amount of database as it did in Microsoft SQL server. On a scale of one to ten, I would give SQL Server an eight out of 10.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We're just customers and end-users. I don't know if I would recommend the solution per se. There are other options out there. Something that is a NoSQL database. Something like Snowflake, for example, might be a very good option for data warehousing. They are more adept at handling different types of data. You shouldn't have to create tables or systems, you should just be able to query files. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. However, for the current scenarios we have, there are other options that may be more suitable. It's not the only product available on the market, and the competition is quite good.

I'm using the 2016 or 2017 version of the solution. There are many SQL options. I'd only recommend this one if it made sense to the individual company and their requirements. In general, I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite happy with the solution so far. Basically with any databasing system, SQL included, a company should be looking at the requirements for why they're looking for any type of databasing system. Is it for backups? Is it for storage? Is it for cross-communication between departments or inter-department communication? Who's going to have the access prior? If it's just going to be on a technical or development level, not a lot of people need to worry about integration requirements except the installation team. Other than that, companies should just look at the financial as well as system requirements that are basically needed for the project or for the company you're in. If a company needs a large scale solution, financially speaking, SQL would be a good solution, however, Postgres would be a far better solution due to its capabilities, integration and API access.

I am a data person. I design data warehouses and I develop analytics. Before implementing SQL Server, make sure that you evaluate it based on the case that you're actually planning to implement it for, and that it's not just for general purposes. It's not built for everything and anything. You need to choose carefully. I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

I would recommend SQL Server as a solution for a medium enterprise or a small business. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

I believe we are using the 2019 version of the solution. In general, I would recommend the solution to other organizations. We've mostly been pretty happy with its performance. We're not Microsoft partners. We are just customers. Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If it had better integration capabilities with Microsoft, I might rate it higher.

The marketing for dealer support and that type of environment is very contorted. It's very difficult to access, but, with the technical side of things, they are fine. My experience is limited, but compared with Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server is many times better and easier to program with. So, I love Microsoft. I don't like Oracle. I would rate SQL Server a ten out of ten.

This is a good product, although my advice is that if a company can afford it then they should use Oracle instead. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this product to others and give it an 8 out of 10.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server a rating of eight.

It's suited for small organizations, but if someone from a larger organization is looking for this, they might have some problems implementing enterprise-wide solutions. This is because of the integrations, as there would be hidden costs to it. The best parts of this solution are the costs and that it is easy to use, but the cons would be with implementing an enterprise-wide solution. There are many hidden factors, such as costs. Also, you have to put more effort into integrating with other solutions across the enterprise. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

1. What is the main purpose of using SQL Server?

2. What is your projected data size and connection? The size shall not be more than few millions row with connection around 1 - 100 connection per seconds.

3. If you wish to perform analytics, than SQL server may not be the best solutions.

It is an overall very good product.

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. Not a ten because it has some limitations. When considering overall scalability, reliability, features, if you look at Oracle, it's still ahead of SQL Server.

In August of last summer, we updated to the latest version of the solution. At least, at that time, it was the latest version. What the school does in its academics is make a minimum training available for students who want to use it. They can learn how. Now we're all online. I do not know if the University has SQL Server as the backend for any of its regular production databases. I think it only is a database for students to choose when they need one for a project. I don't think it has extensive utilization. And in the teaching involved for online learning, I would probably express very lightweight recommendations to try it because we're not on campus. We cannot connect to a real server for a backend in order to do the install on onsite. This is just a COVID-19 in constraint. If a company is considering utilizing this tool in the future, I would advise that they have someone on staff or in a consulting agreement who really knows the tool, and has succeeded with it. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. It's the right tool for production-ready or enabled databases. It's now equivalent to Oracle.

I would recommend this solution, particularly for OLTP purposes, the transactional data purpose rather than for warehousing. For data warehousing I think there are better solutions but for the transaction data, for application purposes, SQL Server great. I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.

My advice for anybody who is considering SQL Server is that it works well for small applications. However, large business applications that use a content delivery network or geographical location, it is not suitable for. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

My advice is that this is the time to completely move to the cloud. If you have a golden or platinum partnership with Microsoft or you have good Microsoft resources then best is to move azure clouds. Azure DB services have been improved a lot in the past few years and it continually improving like others. They are trying to make it closer to the on-premises version. I know it cannot be exactly like on-premises but they can bring most important features. For example Azure brings SSIS features in ADF which solve lot of issues. Another example, Azure launch Snowflake connector with ADF which saves us to writing code in Azure function. At last in my view, you need to evaluate what exactly you are looking for and what type of resource do you have and what is the growth rate of your data. Do you have a direct partner with Microsoft? All things are interrelated and the decision has to depend on these. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SQL Server a Seven.

We are using the 2008 and 2017 versions. I'd like others to know that SQL is easy to use and easy to manage. It also offers pretty good performance, in my opinion. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's not too expensive, or at least that is my understanding, but I am aware there are lots of open source options out there as well companies may want to consider.

I would recommend this solution. It's a good product. I am satisfied with it. It's familiar, we've been using SQL for a while. I would rate it a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement.

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. It's not cheaper any more, like it used to be, but if you can afford it, then it's the best. When I select a vendor, from a tool perspective, I make sure that they have full support available, have been in the market for awhile, and the solution/application is stable. From an open source perspective, like MySQL, Aurora, and MongoDB, they have done a great job in making a robust database container.

Go for it. Thumbs up.

subpartition is necessary

It is definitely important for someone looking at a new vendor to consider the support of the solution. In addition, the customer should really do their research and understand what their needs are, and make sure the new solution will solve those needs.

MS SQL is constantly improving their products. New options, such as managing with PowerShell, are good improvements.