SQL Server Reviews

We are using it for various applications.

It is easy to deploy and easy to maintain.

They need to improve their support. It should be faster.

I have been using it for a couple of years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have more than a thousand users who use this solution. It is being used heavily, and we don't have any plans to increase its usage.

Their support needs improvement. It should be faster.

We didn't use any other solution previously. We have been using it for a long time.

It was easy.

I can install it myself. We also have a technical team of three admins.

Its licensing is yearly. There are no additional costs. There is only the subscription license.

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

We primarily use the solution to store databases. 

Since MongoDB, we have come up and there are lots of tools that do enhance the database management system or keep an eye on our data. People can easily access it. 

The solution is stable. It's reliable. 

The initial setup is simple. 

MongoDB is a bit better. A traditional database system, like the SQL Server, is failing to catch up.

You need an experienced person to use that piece of technology so that you can store everything in a logical manner. We'd like it to be easier to store in a logical manner.

The scalability could be better. 

We've been using this solution since 2012. It's been a while at this point. 

It's not scalable. It hinders your performance as it's slow in nature and you need experienced people to work on it. That is why it's not very scalable.

We currently have ten to 15 users on the solution. 

At this time, we have no plans to increase usage. We are focusing more on MongoDB.

We don't have any experience with Microsoft technical support. Therefore, I wouldn't be able to rate how responsive or helpful they are.

We did not previously use a different solution. We are currently moving towards MongoDB, however.

The installation is easy, especially since the new version has come up. Now, with the latest versions, installation is easy.

I cannot remember the time it took to complete the installation.

Earlier, we had to bring in a technical team, however, our own technical team is quite experienced now. They can now do it themselves.

We pay a yearly subscription fee. 

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.

While we were still using the solution, we employed version 2008, which is a bit on the old side. 

We basically used the solution for hosting the database for Sage ERP.

Stability and usability, which is quite simple, are two of the solution's most valuable features. 

The solution could be better when it comes to security. 

The solution is part of Windows services, which means that if these should stop running, the database system, too, would be affected. This makes it very crucial to constantly monitor the SQL Server, something which reflects on cheap personnel time. 

Scalability could be better.

Although it comes with a cost, using the most recent version is highly advisable, since it would ensure a certain measure of bug fixes and stability. The sole issue would involve the cost, as this is expensive. 

When it comes to integratable features, the monitoring should be addressed. 

We used SQL Server for nearly six years, although we have since moved to another platform. We have used the solution at some point within the last 12 months. 

The solution has good stability, although my advice is to use the most recent version towards this end, to provide for bug fixes. This will ensure some stability. 

The scalability could be improved. 

As support would have involved a licensing fee, we opted not to make use of this. 

We find there is ample documentation online to allow us to resolve issues through independent research.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Although it comes with a cost, using the most recent version is highly advisable, since it would guarantee a measure of bug fixes and provide some stability. The pricing is expensive, though, this being the sole issue. 

We chose not to make use of support, as this would have incurred a licensing fee. 

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use SQL Server for reporting.

I love SQL Server's Common Table Expression. In addition to that, I like its lead and lag functions. That helped us reduce a lot of code when comparing rows in SQL Server.

The way SQL Server pivots data could be improved. For example, I would like built-in comma-separated pivot and unpivot functions. 

I've been working with SQL Server for the past seven years. 

SQL Server is stable.

SQL Server is scalable. I can't say if we'll increase usage in the future because I'm only working here as an analyst. It's a company decision. If necessary, then I can make a recommendation. I can go for that if the client wants, so it depends entirely on our client. If the client wants Oracle instead of Microsoft, I don't have an option.

I never contacted Microsoft support about SQL Server, but I have called about Power BI one or two times. It was great support.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10. 

We are business consults. We use SQL Server to ensure that critical applications remain operational by performing BCM activities across application and database servers.

SQL Server has scaled as per our requirements.

I would like to see improvements made to the stability of SQL Server, as well as more analytics requirements.

From a restoration perspective, I have been working with SQL Server for a few years.

The stability of the SQL Server needs improvements.

We have over 2,000 users in our organization.

I have contacted technical support, and overall my experience with technical support was okay.

The installation took a few days to complete.

We have a team of three or four admins to maintain this solution.

We had assistance from an integrator.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

We were evaluating other solutions for a specific requirement in our organization. The requirement is now complete.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

SQL Server is used for storing data.

I have found SQL Server easy to use.

SQL Server could improve by having better usability or user guidance.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately five years.

The solution is stable and the performance is good.

SQL Server is scalable.

I have not needed to contact support.

The implementation was done by our IT department.

We did the implementation in-house.

The price of the solution is fine.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We have been using SQL Server for more than 10 or 15 years. 

Microsoft support is an issue unto itself. We mainly benefit from common support, such as a forum or Microsoft support, of which I don't have that much experience.

As with Oracle Database, the solution has a reliable database. I do not see much difference between the two when it comes to usage and the program decision to use one solution over another varies with the appropriateness of a given product, some utilizing Oracle, others Scale.

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. 

SQL Server is the database for the transactional database that is being used.

The solution can be used for the BI, the data warehouse part as well, but mostly I have seen it used for the transaction data being stored by the DBMS part of it.

The solution is very easy to use, because even the technical engineers that we get are able to use it more efficiently. I like the programming interface they have where they help us get the table names that we are dealing with, and the field names in that particular table. 

The interface for building the queries or writing the store procedures is good.

If I compare the solution with current technology needs, like NoSQL, that have been prevailing now, they could improve it so there could be a single solution, where we could deal with a single database for both transactional as well as for the in-memory needs that we have.

For the integration part, additional interfaces would be an improvement. If SQL Server could expose certain APIs or certain interfaces which can be used for integration with the warehouse solution, then it would be great.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The team needed for implementing the solution depends on the project size and functionalities needed. But as far as the DB administrator, generally, we use a single resource for each project. One database engineer is sufficient for optimizing the query or indexes or building any database scripts.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.