There are certain shortcomings in the scalability of the product, making it an area where improvements are required.
From an improvement perspective, the price of the product needs to be reduced.
There are certain shortcomings in the scalability of the product, making it an area where improvements are required.
From an improvement perspective, the price of the product needs to be reduced.
I have been using SQL Server for more than ten years. My company is a gold partner of Microsoft.
It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.
It is quite a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.
My company's clients who use the solution are mostly enterprise businesses.
I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.
Neutral
I am using Amazon Cognito for the first time in my company.
I rate the product's initial setup phase a seven to eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.
The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises models.
The solution can be deployed in a few minutes.
The product is expensive.
In our company's daily operations, we use SQL Server for our enterprise applications.
Speaking about how SQL Server played a critical role in a recent project, I would say that in my company, we used it for full management since we had a three-tier architecture and an enterprise application.
SQL Server was beneficial for data management needs, considering the fact that it was used as a part of SSIS packages, which was helpful for importing the data from legacy software.
The performance of the solution was good.
Though I can't elaborate on the valuable security features, I can say that I did not face any security concerns when using the product.
In SQL Server, I manage data recovery and backup with the help of database mirroring.
I recommend the product to those who plan to use it since it is easy to use.
I rate the tool a seven out of ten.
I use the SQL Server for backups and for creating databases and a lot of other stuff. I also use it to shrink data and some stuff like this.
The solution is great for creating backups.
You can create databases using this product.
I like the way you can shrink the volume using SQL.
It's a very stable solution.
I've found the product to be able to scale well.
There should be more security updates for the product. That would be ideal.
I've used the solution for about five or six years. I've used it for quite a while at this point.
The stability of the product is great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's reliable.
So far, I have found the solution to be quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it out, it can do so.
We have about 4,000 users on the solution currently. About five to seven different departments use it.
I don't directly deal with technical support. That would be handled by a different department and a person who is responsible for dealing with issues. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.
I did not use a different solution before using SQL.
It's easy for anyone to install. For me, it was good and easy to install. A company shouldn't have any issues tacking the process.
The deployment is quick. It takes about 15 to 20 minutes. That's it.
I didn't need the assistance of consultants or integrators. It was something I could handle on my own.
You can pay an annual or monthly licensing fee in order to use the solution.
I'd recommend the solution to others. It's very useful.
I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.
We have a few transitional systems in our large company that we maintain with Microsoft SQL Server.
SQL Server is similar to other Microsoft products, such as BI, they are easy to use. You do not need to have an expensive BD to maintain them. All the useful intuitive features you find in Microsoft solutions you will find in SQL Server.
I have used SQL Server within the past 12 months.
SQL Server is stable. However, every product has limitations. It is stable for a certain amount of workload. Beyond the capabilities of this solution, you will need other data solutions, such as Oracle. A solution that is more secure.
Since this is a relational order system, scalability has a limit. If your system is very big, you need bigger servers and you have to spend more money. We scale a system up to a certain level, and then we move or shift data to the warehouse, which is NoSQL. We then do not have any bottleneck in scaling. For using this technique we are happy with it.
It is hard to tell or count how much data we are using because being one of the leading companies in Bangladesh, we have many teams who work on it. Different teams work on many different technologies.
We have not had an issue with the scalability SQL Server.
For databases, we have used a lot of data tests with other solutions, such as Oracle. We have used all Oracle data, Postgres, and a few others.
The initial setup is very straightforward. You do not have to worry about the management of the SQL Server instance.
To scale the solution there are additional costs.
I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.
I use the client, however, I can also use the server, the Microsoft SQL Server Studio. I can use both, both the client and the studio.
We connected Automation Anywhere to the DB. Our reporting tool is also connected to that DB. Our financial application is also connected to the DB and some other databases too as well as some of our APIs.
I like the way it can manage the users from the security section where you can change their roles.
SQL is simple to manage, as long as you know the script, and know the tables that you make reference to. If there are errors, you can easily debug them.
You can easily debug and resolve your issues.
The ease of backup, how you can back up and call up your backups too is great. Backups hardly get corrupt, except if maybe you have some bad hard drive clusters or bad hard drive sectors.
It is stable.
It's an easy-to-use product.
I find the solution to be scalable.
The pricing could be more affordable.
It's like to see less frequent updates. They should be once a month.
I've been using SQL Server for a very long time.
The stability is great. It's very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.
The product scales well. If you need to expand it, you can.
We have around 50 users on the solution right now.
The solution is pretty problem-free and therefore it would be rare to have to reach out to support.
We've always used SQL. I also use SQLite.
The initial setup is very simple, very straightforward. It's not too complex.
The time it takes to set up isn't long. The time of installation is determined by the local system or the server where you are installing it to. That said, it's a light solution. For me, it took maybe ten minutes.
We have eight people who are technical and can handle deployment or maintenance tasks.
I did the installation myself. It's not hard to do. You don't need a consultant or integrator.
We pay a monthly subscription fee.
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.
We use it for both database services and analysis services.
I believe Always On is the most valuable feature. It's also easy to use and not very tricky.
Analysis services have a lot of room for improvement. Basically, manageability on the available tools. They should have improved them already. They are not very efficient. My main headache is with the analysis service, and it would be really good if Microsoft developed some additional tools that are more user-friendly to manage the analysis. This is both from the perspective of management, users' roles, and performance analysis. My main wish for SQL Server would be that management tools for analysis services grow and mature a bit.
I have been using SQL Server for about 15 years.
It's stable. The database service is better than the analysis service, but it's quite stable. It's as stable as the support it has. If it has a good infrastructure and good machines with disks, it's quite stable.
SQL Server is vertically scalable. We have about 3,000 people using this solution.
We haven't used their technical support a lot. I would say it depends on the scope of the help you need. On a scale from one to ten, I would give technical support a seven.
I don't know the exact prices because my focus is essentially technical and not on the bills. A few years ago, they changed the billing policy for the Enterprise Edition, and it became less attractive. But I believe they are still cheaper than Oracle. SQL Server isn't cheap, but it's not expensive either.
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.
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.
SQL Server is easy to manage.
The tool needs to improve its pricing and technical support.
I have been working with the product for ten years.
I rate the product’s stability a seven out of ten.
I rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten.
I rate the tool's deployment a seven out of ten. Deployment time depends on the customer's environment.
I rate the product’s pricing a six out of ten.
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.
We developed a product for banks and we store the data in SQL Server.
SQL Server has good performance, but it could be better.
I have been using SQL Server for a couple of years.
The stability of SQL Server is very important for us because we provide services for banks. The banks need a secure and stable solution from us and we have requested from the cloud provider to give us this level of service.
We have approximately 10 developers and architects using SQL Server. Additionally, we have approximately four end-users using the solution.
The support from Microsoft has been good.
I have previously used Oracle.
The initial setup of SQL Server is not complicated.
We have four technicians that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.
There is a license required to use the solution and I am satisfied.
I would recommend this solution to others.
I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.