SQL Server Reviews

We are using it for accounts payable and accounts receivable automation. We make accounts payable and accounts receivable solutions, and we're using SQL Server as one of the building blocks.

It is integrated with Microsoft tools.

The stored procedure integration with our development could be better. Things are always changing very fast at Microsoft, and it takes a lot of resources to get on top of it. We're struggling with version control.

In terms of new features, we don't have any feature requests. We are not focusing on the database.

I have been using SQL Server for 17 years.

Its stability is okay.

Its scalability is okay.

Their technical support is okay.

It is something we have been using for a lot of years. If we're paying, it should be reasonable.

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.

Private Cloud

Microsoft SQL Server is a database application, meaning it acts as the backend system for help with the backend data repository system. It concerns itself with every activity that happens at the front end of the database in Microsoft SQL Server. ERP Microsoft solutions is one reason that the SQL server has compatibility. The management of Microsoft SQL Server is actually quite easy. It has a GUI interface and enables a person to do whatever is required at the command line level. It functions as a repository for storing one's data in the relational database. 

The Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition have certain limitations. While the latter is clearly more expensive than the former, it would be nice to see some of the features in the Enterprise Edition be moved to the Standard Edition. This will encourage many more people to use that solution.

If we were discussing the 2000 edition in respect of the SQL Server, I would probably cite security and performance as issues. However, nowadays, when it comes to an application connected to their databases, there is no real difference between MS SQL Server and Oracle. As a consequence, it would be nice to see the application be made more cost-effective. I am aware of much database self-management in respect of Oracle. I know that the last time a colleague of mine used this solution in California, he informed me that the application itself was managing the database.

At present, the solution uses the older connection and the schema is designed in such a way that it can actually provide a very low level of virtualization. Since the security is also hierarchical within the system, they've really done a very good job. 

This said, I would like to see the database become fully automated.

I have been using SQL server for a couple of years, since day one. 

The solution is stable and it has remained so over the years. I've worked in different organizations, such as the banks here in Lagos. Straight off the bat, I've been using Microsoft SQL Server 2000. We currently use Microsoft SQL Server for our ERP needs. How one designs his tables is important. As the team leader, it is my job to ensure that the functioning is as it should be. The application is pretty straightforward. 

Since we can automate most of our tasks, it means that the management is very easy. We can have jobs for our backups. The solution grants us the ability to perform database housekeeping tasks.

The solution is very scalable.

It's been fun dealing with technical support. Generally speaking, they have shown a willingness to handle issues we may have. 

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. 

On-premises

We use SQL Server with Sage products.

It is used by our finance team and also human resources.

the database management tool is very easy to use and largely meets expectations

As SQL Server could not support the number of connections we desired, we were forced to go with Oracle. This is an area that needs to be improved.

for 04 Years now 

The solution could be more stable

The performance in terms of simultaneous connection must be reviewed.

We do not pay for technical support.

No

The initial setup is time-efficient and can be done independently.

There is no need for developers or managers to deploy and maintain the solution. One or two systems' administrators are sufficient for its deployment.

The deployment is on-premises. We installed the solution on a server and this on the Windows server. The user is provided an application for connecting to it.

great

The licensing involves a one-time fee.

We evaluated Oracle as an alternative.

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

On-premises

I primarily use the solution for the development of various applications, database connections, that I need for projects.

I just use it myself, for assignments. I am a student and am studying the product.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is that it's integrated with the Visual Studio and also with Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio. It's a tool they have and it's quite easy to use and understand. It's the interface for programming for SQL Services.

The solution is very stable.

The solution scales well.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I don't have a deep technical knowledge of the solution. It's hard to discuss features that may be lacking.

The solution could be better integrated with the SQL Server Studio tool.

There are some complexities with the initial setup sometimes as there are a lot of options.

I've been using the solution for two years at this point.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable in terms of performance.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

As a student, I don't yet have plans to increase usage of the product.

I've been in touch with technical support. I contact them to assist with a bug that I detected, that was not really related to SQL Server. It was, however, related to another tool, the Microsoft SQL Server Studio. They responded quickly. I was quite satisfied with their level of support for the most part.

I've also worked with PostgreSQL, and MySQL as well as MongoDB. I found that, in comparison, PostgreSQL was not as easy to use.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. It's very similar to other software products. The Visual Studio is easier, however, it's still mostly straightforward. It could be better integrated with this SQL Server Studio tool. You have to install it separately. If they could be installed together, that would be an improvement in my opinion. While not everyone would use it, the developer would find it a helpful item to have.

It can sometimes be confusing to install by yourself since it does have many options that you need to decide on.

I was able to install the solution myself. I did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant.

You do need to pay for a license in order to use the product.

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.

On-premises

It is used for many things. We primarily use it for our two-tier and three-tier applications.

It is stable, and it works okay.

It would be nice if they can reduce its price.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is stable.

I didn't use their technical support.

I have used Microsoft Access.

Its installation is straightforward. It took half an hour to one hour.

I can install it myself.

We did a one-time payment. Its price, in general, can be reduced.

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

On-premises

We use the product for information systems. This is a must both for us. We use it for our Enterprise Portal.

The solution has proven to be very flexible.

The product is quite stable.

Overall, we've found it to be extremely easy to use. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not difficult to implement and the deployment doesn't take too long.

Technical support has been pretty good so far. They are helpful.

It's a good option for those that have a lot of Microsoft solutions in use.

The solution needs to be more secure. It's lacking, compared to, for example, Oracle.

The product needs to work on its scalability. Oracle can scale a bit more effectively.

Sometimes we have some performance issues. It's not like Oracle. Oracle is more powerful in terms of performance. 

I've just been dealing with the solution for a few months. It hasn't been too long just yet.

We've had some performance issues overall. It's something that's a pain point for us. They need to work on their capabilities in this regard.

The solution could be more scalable. Oracle scales better for companies that need to expand.

We have two to three customers that use the solution currently.

We've used technical support in the past. They've been helpful and responsive. We haven't had any issues when we deal with them. We are quite satisfied so far with the level of service we receive when we reach out. 

I've also used Oracle in the past. From my side, Oracle is more technical and is more scalable, and more secure than the SQL server.

The installation is quite straightforward. It's not overly difficult or complicated. I found it to be quite simple.

The deployment is rather quick. It took us about one hour, from what I can recall.

We just need one technical person to handle the implementation and maintenance processes. 

Customers do have to pay to use the solution. They tend to pay on a yearly basis. 

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. 

On-premises

It is used for everything under the sun. We're currently using it for a health pass for a medic aid information management system. It is also used by companies in banking and retail.

We are using SQL Server 2014 on Windows Server 2012 platform, and we also have SQL Server 2016 on Windows Server 2016 platform. I have primarily worked on the hardware, but I am now also working in the Amazon AWS cloud.

The entire solution that we're deploying is built on Microsoft SQL Server as a database engine. Our solution is completely engineered for that, and if we attempt to deploy it in any other database engine, it is going to be a huge nightmare.

Microsoft SQL Server is one of the better database administration software packages out there. It runs primarily on Windows Server platforms, but it can also run on Linux platforms.

Primarily, the data replication and the backup areas can be improved. It should have data replication capabilities and uptime capabilities.  The native SQL Server Backups take more time than do the backup processes from LiteSpeed, and the backup compression is a little less.  

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.5, which came out about 30 years ago.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can run the database engine on the C drive, or you can run it on a large cloud array or a disk array. Currently, we just have developers and testers accessing it.

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you know how to set it up, it is easy, but you have to learn that over time. For a new user, it is detailed. You need to have the right things in place at the right time before you actually install the software.

To create an instance, it takes about an hour overall. This includes deploying the basic system, applying the latest service pack, and then applying the latest cumulative update.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, the number of staff members required would depend on the implementation. It requires coordination amongst teams. It is a team effort. The database administrator creates and runs the jobs that create the backup file. You need to have somebody for copying the backup files to offline storage. You also need to have system administrators for setting up the hardware.

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.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I use this solution as our data warehouse. 

We use the reports, data analysis, and for connecting our databases to multiple resources.

It's a flexible solution.

The installation process should be simplified.

The configuration could be easier.

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

It's a stable solution. We have no issues with the stability.

We have 10 users in our organization who are using this solution.

We have a team made up of engineers, data analysts, and some developers to maintain this solution.

We have plans to increase your usage.

We have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I was using MySQL.

The installation is not easy, it could be easier.

It can take many hours to configure it.

I completed the installation myself.

It's a bit expensive.

The licensing is expensive.

I would recommend SQL Server to others.

I would rate SQL Server an eight 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. 

Hybrid Cloud

I primarily use it to extract some configuration information for my product - in order to understand how the configuration is done for my base product.

The solution is very easy to use. It's intuitive and easy to navigate. Overall, it's a straightforward product.

You don't really need a learning code to study MySQL. If you know the basics, it's quite easy to use the product. There isn't a high learning curve and you don't have to be overly technical.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The documentation could be much better. It's lacking right now. If there are better help pages, for even complicated queries and stuff like that that would be quite a help for users.

There were times where it was not working all the time, however, that could be due to some issues on our network side as well. I'm not really sure of that, and therefore can't blame the solution. However, I do remember experiences where, when I tried something, it didn't work.

I've been dealing with the solution for seven years now. It's been a while.

For my purposes, I haven't had any issues with stability. I find it to be reliable in terms of performance. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's good.

I don't really use it heavily, basically, my usage is quite small. It's been okay for me for my purposes. However, it's my understanding that it can scale.

We have more than ten engineers that currently use the product regularly.

I've never needed to reach out to technical support from Microsoft, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I don't have any direct experience I can draw from.

The initial setup was not overly difficult or complex. It was quite straightforward. It's a pretty simple process. 

Our team is capable of handling the maintenance internally.

In terms of pricing, I just downloaded it and started using it. I don't have a lot of information on licensing. I can't speak to the costs.

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.

On-premises