SQL Server Reviews

I am a professional and I use this SQL Server in different companies. One of the companies I worked for was in the automotive industry. They had automobile products which they developed the SQL Server and database. At that time it was the first time I used SQL Server. I have also used Suprema which is a biometric system that also had an SQL Server. Our main products for data we have used SQL Server. However, my main application is developed on Oracle and MySQL, not any other database solution.

All of our systems use this solution, it can control security, data management, and integration. 

Many developers like SQL Server.

The solution could improve by having more integration with other operating systems and other platforms.

I have used SQL Server within the past 12 months.

SQL Server is stable.

The solution is scalable.

I have used MySQL.

If you follow the restoration policy, the installation is not a problem. If you want connectivity in the application then you have to open the ports and configure them. Otherwise, I'm very pleased it is very simple.

I can do the implementation myself.

SQL Server is under a license from Microsoft.

I would not recommend this solution.

I rate SQL Server a six out of ten.

We use SQL Server as a database management system for all of our projects.

While this is a reliable product, it has room for improvement.

Although Microsoft SQL was accessible in some projects, we did not use it everywhere. It is determined by the project. It's quite beneficial in some circumstances, but it couldn't support SQL databases in others, consequently, we used other suppliers like Oracle, Informix DB, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and others.

We have been using SQL Server for quite some time now.

We use it both on-premises and in the cloud. It is dependent on the projects.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

SQL Server scales well.

In the future, we may expand our usage.

I don't have any issues with the technical support.

We evaluated each product after using it, starting with Informix DB and ending with Oracle.

Oracle, Informix DB, PostgreSQL, and MySQL are among the products we use.

It's quite easy to install.

Completing the installation is not an issue.

My position is not related to installation, but if it is necessary, I am capable of doing it.

It requires the purchase of a license. Our company's products all have licenses.

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.

We are using SQL Server for our financial application package.

One of the best features of SQL Server is the efficient retrieval of information.

We want to move to Azure, and the solution could be made better to make the process easier for the migration from on-premise to the cloud.

I have used SQL Server for approximately seven years.

SQL Server is stable. However, Microsoft products have a tendency to crash. I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of stability.

The scalability of SQL Server is good.

The solution is straightforward to install.

The price of SQL Server could be better in the African market. The licensing model needs to be improved, it is confusing.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

It's a normal DMS, so it can be used everywhere you want to use any RDBMS or relational database. It's for normal transactions.

SQL Server could integrate better with other platforms.

I've been using SQL Server for the last six months. Earlier we used DB2, but now we use this one.

SQL Server's performance is fine.

Microsoft support is fine.

We don't deal with the setup because we are developers. The system or admin team does all those things. So I don't have any idea.

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.

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 used SQL Server to store all of our lab data on the database. We had a front-end application that needed SQL in the background for archiving all the laboratory data.

The solution could improve by having better integration.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately three years.

The solution could be more stable.

We have approximately 200 users that use an application that uses the SQL Servers database.

The installation was straightforward. We did not have a large installation and it took a couple of weeks to complete.

Our IT department does the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There is an annual license and it is priced reasonably.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

SQL Server can be useful for a lot of businesses and enterprise solutions. SQL Server is very powerful and useful when you need to store, retrieve, process, and analyze a large amount of data. In my organization, almost everyone uses SQL Server. That's about 10 people using it.

SQL Server's Management Studio is very user-friendly. I like their database and the additional features it offers. It's also easy to integrate SQL Server with things like CLR, PowerShell, and command shell

I would like to see SQL Server add the ability to write to multiple sites or support replication between multiple sites at the transaction level. If we can have data available on multiple sites as quickly as possible, that would be a great feature.

I've been using SQL Server for around 10 years. I have 30 years of experience in the IT industry. In that time, I have worked on different kinds of databases, such as Oracle. Before that, I worked on FoxPro. I have also worked with PostgreSQL.

It's absolutely scalable. 

Our clients are the end-users of the SQL Server applications, and we do all the development and maintenance for them. So anything related to support, our clients take care of it.

I work on the development and performance-tuning side, so I don't do the installation but my guess would be that it is pretty straightforward by now. 

I am not aware of the cost because our clients take care of them, but I think there are enterprise licenses. If you go for Azure Cloud databases, then you just can pay as you go.

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.

We do data warehousing, and our clients are mainly large commercial Insurance providers in the United States.

It's easy to use and fairly intuitive. I do development and data analysis, so we do a lot of work with SSIS and SQL Job Scheduler. Deploying new databases is very simple with things like BACPAC. You don't have to do all the scripting for the database, then all the tables, keys, etc. It takes all that out of your hands.

One thing I don't like about SQL Server is the way they've set up security with users and groups. It just doesn't seem that intuitive to me. Adding some more explanatory information might help some. Sometimes the documentation is a little thin, but the same could be said about a lot of products.

I've been using SQL Server on and off since it first came out in the 1990s. Most of the people I've worked for are SQL Server shops.

I can't really speak intelligently about that because I haven't been on any of the real big ones yet. 

The complexity of the initial setup really depends. Obviously, you're going to need to know a few things and there are different ways to do deployments. I like the BACPAC, which is one of the features that come with SQL Server. It's a nice feature to deploy. BACPAC really handles all of the configuration for you. If you use that, I don't think you really need to know too much. If we're talking about a small database that holds a few thousand records, it doesn't matter what you're doing. You can't make a mistake because it's just not big enough.  

We do a lot of Azure-based on-demand type systems where we host the system or we host it in Azure. We do the work for them. So we don't really do a lot of those installs.

We're going a lot heavier into Azure and we're going to be dealing with lots of volume because insurance data is pretty voluminous. I think some of our clients don't like the idea of having one gigantic VM system to run the database. That's one reason why they're switching to Snowflake. We had to do some SSRS stuff in the past, and I think they're moving over to Power BI mostly.

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.

We set up SQL Servers for developers who develop applications for data mining. Our clients are generally small or medium-sized businesses. There's also a SQL Server Express that many software vendors use to support their applications. That gets installed often—usually as part of the application installation. 

It is fairly easy to work with. I like the high-availability options, like mirroring for example, and the high-availability groups. It's quite an interesting feature that enables high availability for the SQL Server. I think it's important. So that's the feature that I'm particularly interested in and it works pretty well.

The Management Studio is a pretty heavy piece of software, and it's sometimes slow. I would recommend making an express version of the Management Studio, which is lighter and has fewer features but is a little faster.

"Using" is the wrong word. We mostly set it up for others. The last time we set up an SQL Server for a client was about a year ago.

We haven't had any experiences. The software hasn't been unstable or glitchy in our environment so far.

In terms of scalability, it would be closed to a high-availability group. So I would say it varies in scale. 

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

The solution is primarily used as a relational database. It's a great option for anyone who needs to still use a database.

The solution is very common. It's easy to use.

The product offers a lot of support. Technical support has been great.

It's a reliable solution currently in this space.

The solution doesn't take a long time to set up. It's pretty straightforward. 

The solution is expensive. The licensing costs are high. 

I've been dealing with the solution for 20 years or so. It's been two decades. I've used it for a while. 

The stability is pretty good. I find it to be reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good.

We have 150 users on the solution currently.

I've contacted Microsoft technical support in the past and have been satisfied with the level of service I get. They're good.

We have a special database team that is running. Except for the initial installation of the hardware, they are doing everything as it's an in-house solution.

It took a day or two to implement. It might have even taken less time. 

We have a team that can manage the implementation process. 

The licensing is a bit expensive. We'd like them to be more flexible in terms of costs.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

We did not evaluate other solutions before implementing this solution. 

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.