SQL Server Reviews

This solution is part of the ERP that we have for application. We use it for many purposes, such as POS in-store cash registers for enterprise companies.

SQL Server provides good performance. Most of the SQL solutions can be integrated and this solution is no different, you are able to link other databases. For example, we have Oracle running a Postgres Server and it is linked. It follows the ISO standard when it comes to commands, it works well.

They could improve by adding the SQL format.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately eight years.

The solution is stable, I have not had any issue using it.

The scalability is very good.

We have approximately 500 users using the POS.

I have previously used IBM Informix, PostgresSQL, and Oracle Databases.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately 30 minutes. If you were to add more features the installation could take longer. For example, there are many features such as table partitioning allowing you to do queries faster, transferring data from one table to another, and performing quicker backups.

We did the implementation ourselves. We have a team that does the maintenance for Windows Servers, Linux desktops, and Linux Servers.

There is a license required for servers and for the POS we use the free version. The free version allows you to have tables and a total database size of approximately 10 GB, which is enough for our requirements.

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.

We are a product-based company, and we use it as part of our product. It is deployed in a public cloud and on-premises.

We use it as part of our product, so it is helpful for us. It is easy to move data across versions, and it holds lots of our internal data for operations.

It is easy to use and very stable.

Its support for JSON should be improved. It does support JSON, but the support is not good enough currently. 

They should also improve the way indexes work. Its performance can also be improved because sometimes it becomes very slow for certain table designs.

It cannot have more than a certain amount of data. As compared to other databases, its capability to handle large volumes of data is not very good.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It has been very stable. We had a very good experience with it.

Scaling is a challenge because you cannot scale horizontally. We've run into a couple of scenarios where we were not able to scale it easily.

Their support is quite satisfactory. They have not been perfect every time, but they have mostly been quite good. They're prompt, but they weren't able to resolve some of the issues.

It is easy to install.

Our IT team handles the installation.

It is expensive.

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.

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. 

Our use case is creating data warehouses using the SQL Server database.

The solution is deployed on-premises and on public and private clouds.

The solution has a user-friendly environment and supporting functionalities. It also has great memory and processing databases.

Other than Synapse and the other version of SQL Server, they face some problems while processing the data. For example, the one issue we face is that when we need to process the queue, it's costly with Azure and SQL Servers. We also face some memory issues with that.

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

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have a different technical team that deals with issues. So we only communicate the issue to them, and they communicate with the team.

Setup is very easy, especially compared to Oracle.

Synapse is a bit costly. If I compare it with different databases, I think it's a reasonable price. If I'm talking about licensing of the Oracle, it seems that normal organizations have it and some smaller organizations can also afford it, which is a good thing.

I have also evaluated Oracle.

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.

We use SQL Server for our application data.

As a government agency, all of our data is stored in our environment on-premises.

SQL Server is easier to use than Oracle, programming-wise.

It is the latest technology and pretty powerful in terms of the high availability of the virtual server.

We have had problems implementing a data warehouse using SQL Server. It may be because the data is too big, although it claims to be able to handle the amount of data that we have. Perhaps there are some technical issues because there is something weird going on. It cannot find the correct IP address.

I have been using SQL Server for ten years.

This product is not quite as stable as Oracle. I would rate the stability as moderate and would not rate it ten out of ten.

SQL Server claims to be good, scalability-wise, but we have had issues with it.

On the other hand, we have been using it for a lot of large applications and it has worked well in those cases. For the most part, it is good, and we have a lot of users.

Microsoft technical support is good.

I also have experience with Oracle and I find that SQL Server is easier to work with, but it is not as powerful.

Initially, it is easy to set up.

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 are using the latest version.

We can use the solution for the same application. On the database side we have Microsoft SQL and on the operating system side we have 2019.

I want to see one improvement and this involves the replication between the DC and DR. We have limited options at the moment and it does not lend sufficient support for the number of databases. This means we have a huge number of databases, topping approximately 2,000. For the moment, this particular replication is not supported by SQL. 

The support number of databases needs to be increased, as well as the database number of databases that it supports. That support cannot be found when it comes to the replication between the DC and DR. 

I have been using SQL Server for ten years. 

The solution is sufficiently stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

When it comes to the speed, knowledge and customer-friendliness of the technical support, we feel these to be good. 

We did not use other solutions prior to SQL Server. 

The initial setup is easy, flawless. 

It lasts a single day. 

We handed the implementation on our own. 

This involved a technical team of 15 people. 

There is a need to pay for the license for SQL Server. We have an enterprise license, which we consider to be fine. 

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. 

I am an IT professional, I write services for my clients. I provide support services for SQL, firewalls, and operating systems. IT infrastructure support in general is what I provide.

What I like most is the management, as it is very easy compared with other products.

Security is an issue. This is an area that needs to be improved.

There is security built-in, but most of the developers don't emphasize the security enough. When they are building the products or databases, they don't focus on the security of the database.

I have been providing services for this solution to my clients for five or six years.

We have had no issues with stability. It's one of the most stable products.

This solution is scalable. It is easy to expand.

In the five or six years that I have been handling SQL Servers, I have not had to contact technical support. 

Their documentation is sufficient for troubleshooting and maintenance activity.

I am also using Sophos.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have our in-house team of more than 10 engineers for maintenance.

Pricing is a bit on the higher side. It could be reduced.

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 using SQL Server for the backend of our SAP and are planning on moving to a cloud version soon.

This solution has helped our organization by providing a backbone for our SAP. We would not be able to operate without it.

We have found the solution valuable because we are able to easily create a query, shrink, backup, and make new tables.

We are using an older version of SQL Server and the migration to a newer version could be made easier.

If you are a new user then this solution could be difficult, they could improve by making the overall usage easier.

In an upcoming release, they could improve the ability to customize the solution.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately ten years.

We have not experienced any problems with the stability of this solution.

SQL Server is scalable.

We have not used the support from Microsoft. However, we did have freelance support a few times.

The installation is very easy. We did not have any challenges.

The price of the solution is very expensive. If I went with the cloud version of SQL a license would cost me approximately 11,000 Riyals per month.

We have a team that has evaluated other solutions before we chose SQL Server, such as Oracle.

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.