SQL Server Reviews

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.

We are a product-based company, and we use it as part of our product. It is deployed in a public cloud and on-premises.

We use it as part of our product, so it is helpful for us. It is easy to move data across versions, and it holds lots of our internal data for operations.

It is easy to use and very stable.

Its support for JSON should be improved. It does support JSON, but the support is not good enough currently. 

They should also improve the way indexes work. Its performance can also be improved because sometimes it becomes very slow for certain table designs.

It cannot have more than a certain amount of data. As compared to other databases, its capability to handle large volumes of data is not very good.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It has been very stable. We had a very good experience with it.

Scaling is a challenge because you cannot scale horizontally. We've run into a couple of scenarios where we were not able to scale it easily.

Their support is quite satisfactory. They have not been perfect every time, but they have mostly been quite good. They're prompt, but they weren't able to resolve some of the issues.

It is easy to install.

Our IT team handles the installation.

It is expensive.

You should know its limitations. It cannot have more than a certain amount of data.

I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

I use the solution for analytics and reporting.

I have found the most valuable features to be the flexibility and the vast amount of features available.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is adequate but could improve. We have approximately 100 people using the solution in our company.

The installation is not difficult, it is quick. It took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

We have four technicians that do the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

It can be used for different things such as data warehousing and online transactional processing (OLTP). This is a product that I have never used in production, however.

The most valuable feature is that it is easy to use and you don't have to do a lot of configuration. For example, there is no installation.

When you want to insert data, it is easy to do. For example, if I want to test something then I log into my GitHub account, download what I want, and then upload it to the SQL server.

The integration with other products like SQL Developer is really good. Connecting it to Visual Studio is also quite good.

More things in SQL Server need to be automated. We need to do a lot of things, especially on the cloud, and Oracle has better automation for handling these kinds of tasks. Automation is the key, these days.

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

With respect to scalability, I can say that the cloud version is scalable. I don't have much to say about how an on-premises deployment scales. However, in general, both Oracle and Microsoft products scale really well.

Technical support is responsive and quite good.

I also have experience with Oracle Database. When I compared pricing between the two products, I found that Microsoft was more expensive.

There is no installation. Everything is done by Microsoft and all you have to do is deploy it. The process takes less than five minutes.

I have done the installation many times by myself.

As a cloud-based product, there are no special resources required for maintenance. Once you deploy it, you just want to make sure that the data is displayed or presented in the way that you want it. Most of the technical work is handled by Microsoft.

There is a charge for this product if you are using it in production. For development, there is no cost. The pricing from Microsoft is quite expensive compared to Oracle.

In summary, this is a good product, I plan to continue using it, and I definitely recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for studying data and statistics. We have some services that we are monitoring and keeping records and doing reports, and we use it for that.

The solution is quite stable.

The solution has the capability of scaling.

The performance is good. 

It's very easy to use.

The solution was delivered to us, and we really don't interface with the solution directly. I can't speak to any features that are missing.

The only people that can use it directly are developers. It's not for everyday users.

The pricing in general could be better.

We've used the solution for about five years or so. It's been a while.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. We do not deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale, however, it's dependant on the hardware. It's not limitless.

There are about ten users using the solution at this time.

We do have plans to increase usage in the future.

We don't interface with Microsoft support. We always go to the vendor that performed the integration for us.

We did not implement the solution. We had it delivered to us.

I've done an installation in the past, however, not at this company. It's straightforward. It's simple due to the fact that it's going to be installed on the Microsoft operating system, not like MySQL that's used on a Linux server.

Deployment may take about 15 minutes or so.

We have a technical team of about eight people that can handle maintenance as necessary.

We had an integrator deliver the solution to us, as we are not ourselves developers.

I don't have any details on the licensing in terms of any details or costs. It's not an aspect of the solution I directly deal with.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have any business relationship with the company.

We use the express edition of the solution.

It was delivered as part of a solution. We are not developers. It was a turnkey solution delivered to us by an integrator, and we are doing some maintenance, however, we are not developing the content of the database. It was used as part of our services for maybe five years or more.

The database is on the back end. We are using it with our applications at the front end that we are interfacing with. In terms of the SQL server, we don't go and use it directly. We use it through the application. There's an application that is providing a user interface for us, and we work on that user interface. We don't work on the native interface of the SQL server.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I've heard that Oracle is better.

I'd recommend this solution to other companies.

We are using this solution as a database. The main purpose is as an SQL Server.

Our backend and core systems are using Microsoft SQL Server. We have no complaints from anyone who is using it.

We have nothing that we can compare it with.

It's much more friendly in comparison with Oracle.

We are using the standard features. I don't see any areas that can be simplified with the standard functionalities. We don't use any special extended features.

From my point of view, using SQL Server 2017 and 2019 is very good. I haven't experienced any issues or been in a situation where I was struggling with problems for which I didn't have access to proper documentation or proper functions.

I have been using SQL Server for eight years.

After eight years in our company, we have not had any issues with SQL Server from a stability point of view.

We are a small company. We don't have any issues with this and we are fully virtualized. If we need to, we can extend the amount of CPUs as we want.

Our core system is being used by 50 users, but they are not accessing the SQL Server. We have approximately 10 users in our company who are using the SQL Server.

I have never used technical support.

I am using Avamar and Data Domain. I have been using Data Domain for four or five years. It was used as the data storage for the backup solution in our sister company.

I worked with Oracle in the previous company. Microsoft SQL Server is better.

We have also used Software Center, Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange, and almost everything that is Microsoft-based.

It was installed by an outsourcing company. It is another sister company.

It's cheaper than Oracle.

I am fine with the pricing, but pricing is an area that can always be improved.

We are Microsoft D-level partners. Pricing is not an issue for us, because of the outreach of our mother company.

We are a Microsoft-based company.

I would rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a relational database system.

The solution offers very high performance.

It is a very reliable solution. We find it to be quite stable.

We've found the product to be very scalable, specifically from MSSQL. 

The product offers various deployment models.

The Message Broker portion of the solution is not very scalable in comparison to the rest of the solution. The problem is, you can exclude that portion.

The Task Scheduler has a lot of shortcomings. This could be improved quite a bit.

The enterprise version of the product should be more cost-effective.

We've been using the solution for the last 15 or so years. It's been a while. We have a lot of experience with it.

The stability of the product is very good. It offers excellent performance. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is extremely scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so without any problems.

The enterprise version of the solution needs to be priced more competitively.

We have a couple of models. We lease through Azure monthly, which is for the Standard version. We have had to purchase the Enterprise version to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars, which is just ridiculous.

On top of that, there aren't really any other knock-on costs.

We have experience with almost every angle of Microsoft ecosystem that you could imagine.

We're a direct customer. We own a MSSQL server. We have it deployed both on-premises and on the cloud, so we use different deployment models. We have distinct instances in the cloud and we have distinct instances in our on-prem.

I would warn other organizations to not use their Message Broker and don't rely on their Task Scheduler. Look elsewhere. Go look at Oversource, Rabbit MQ, Azure Message Broker, or something other than what's built into Microsoft's SQL server. That would be my advice.

Our original architecture messaging infrastructure was based on Microsoft SQL server's Message Broker. It's been a complete disaster. It's a black hole that can't be diagnosed or supported in terms of troubleshooting from Microsoft when it doesn't work. When it doesn't work, it just doesn't work and no one can answer why. That is very bad. The intended use of it was for enterprise messaging. However, that is not a use case for MSSQL Message Broker, period. We're in the process of moving in a couple of directions. We're going to move to Azure Service Bus as an interim solution, as our current technical capabilities are very Microsoft-centric. Then, the next step will be to move to other more enterprise-class messaging and queuing subsystems like RabbitMQ.

The SQL server as an engine probably deserves a very high nine out of ten. It's a very, very efficient relational database management system. And it is very scalable.