SQL Server Reviews

We are using SQL Server for data processing.

The most valuable features of SQL Server are the speed, great support, and it is from a known vendor.

The security features of the solution could be better.

I have used SQL Server within the past 12 months.

SQL Server is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution. We increase the number of users every year.

I have not contacted their technical support.

The process for the deployment is straightforward. It takes approximately four hours to complete.

We did the implementation of SQL Server in-house. We have eight people managing the solution. The team includes managers, technicians, and administrators.

There is a subscription that needs to be purchased to use the solution.

I would advise others this is a good Microsoft solution.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

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.

All of our .NET applications and some of our third-party applications require a single server database, AutoCAD, and things like that. Our custom apps are the largest estate of databases.

In our production environments, we're on version 17. I've worked with the most recent version but not in a production environment. 

I like the availability group functionality. We are setting up more clusters using availability groups. The enterprise licensing or Software Assurance makes it a little bit cheaper as well. It is nice to have that read-only copy for reporting and everything else.

They've been adding a lot of great functionality such as columnstore indexes to improve the way indexes are rebuilt and to be able to do online index rebuilds. All those are great features.

On the SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) side, I have noticed more bugs in terms of being able to connect to our SQL servers. I can't tell how many times my recent server list got dropped or cleaned out. It is a pain, and it would be nice to have that recent connect list when you connect in. For whatever reason, once in a while, I get a hard error, and it'll close. When I go back in, everything is cleared out. It is annoying when you are working with more than a hundred database instances.

I have been working with this solution for probably 18 years.

Everything is pretty much scripted out, so it is pretty straightforward for us. 

They've been adding a lot of great functionality, and hopefully, they continue down that path. We don't use a lot of the more advanced features at this point, but for what we're doing right now, it's working really great with availability groups and other features. 

Its usability has gotten a lot better after version 14. There were a lot of great updates after version 14 for SQL or query performance with the engine.

I would rate it an 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.

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.

Our primary use case is for SQL Server is data warehousing and business intelligence.

This solution acts as the backbone of most IT services. It is essential for us to use it.

I have found the whole solution with all its features wonderful.

If this solution could provide an automatic indexing feature it would be very useful.

In the next release, there could be better integration with Power BI or other tools.

I have been using this solution for approximately 20 years.

The solution is stable. There has been a few bugs but all solutions have them at one time or another.

There are scalability limitations and this is why we are evaluating cloud alternatives. 

I rate the scalability of SQL Server a four out of five.

We provide support for our clients but if we need support we receive it quickly because we are prime customers.

We are currently evaluating cloud options.

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution to thoroughly investigate if this is the right tool for their use case.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

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. 

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.