Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

We use a relational database management system and 90% of the projects I've worked with have used SQL Server. We are partners with SQL Azure. 

The main valuable feature is the auto scaling. In addition, the security features they've implemented on cloud make it a little easier compared to on-prem SQL, they're great. It enables added scalability, and costing can be tweaked and made more reliable, flexible and cost effective.

I think SQL could be improved in terms of ease of use for developers when it comes to performance. For example, enabling suggestions or auto-tune performances, providing results which are higher level recommendations. I know there are tools that performance analyze, but I personally find it to be overly complicated. If they look at performance assistance, add-ons or plugins that might help the developer, focus can be on business logic rather than performance. This is an ongoing issue for me and I'd like to see developers given the flexibility to change those recommendations, it would simplify things. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

SQL's stability is dependent on where it's hosted. 

If you're going into a cluster with multiple width or multiple SQL Servers, deployment becomes a little more tricky. In general, though, the initial setup is relatively easy. 

I recommend this solution and I rate it an eight out of 10. 

The solution is primarily used as a database.

The solution is very easy to use. It's quite user-friendly.

The product is quite stable. The performance is great and it's reliable.

It's very good as an on-premises deployment.

We've found the solution to be scalable and easy to expand.

It would help if the solution was more secure. It's an aspect they could work on for future releases.

We've been dealing with the solution for many years now. It's been a while.

The solution is stable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

I've never directly dealt with technical support and therefore cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. Typically, if we have a problem, we just Google it and look for the answer online.

We don't install it. We just use it. It is my understanding that in Azure we don't install anything. We go on Amazon or Microsoft and make a machine. There's no installation.

You do need to pay a license fee in order to use the product. I can't speak to the exact price.

As we are planning to move to the cloud, we are looking at other options, including PostgreSQL or Microsoft SQL Server. It's my understanding that there is not a big difference between Microsoft SQL on Cloud and the Microsoft SQL Server. We still have lots of experience on Microsoft's SQL Server, and likely our company is still prepared to use Microsoft SQL on Azure, not PostgreSQL. On the other hand, a lot of ERPs nowadays on the market using PostgreSQL. So our developers in the company have experience with this product, PostgreSQL.

We use the product and we offer it to customers as well.

We are planning to move to the cloud in the future.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. Our company prefers SQL Azure. We enjoy its capabilities. I'd recommend the product.

Until now, we don't yet have full experience with it and just we just apply it in very small scenarios - just for feasibility and to take some feasibility tests. We have yet to start converging our ERP. We're checking if it's good or available and if it will fit in some scenarios.

We don't have to manage it much. It is managed by Microsoft, which makes it easy for us because there is no admin overhead for managing the servers. 

It is also easily scalable. During peak hours, it can scale higher.

We have a very small database running on SQL Azure. We have not been able to load bigger systems on it. It is still not something that is feasible. All our heavy-duty systems are on SAP, and it should have more compatibility with other vendors such as SAP. 

Its price can definitely be lower. It is pretty pricey.

We've been using SQL Azure for about three years.

It is stable.

It is easily scalable. We have five people who are working with this solution.

Their technical support is very good for SQL Azure. Basically, based on my experience, we usually don't have any problem with support for Microsoft products. If we are seeking support for something like Linux or something that is not exactly a Microsoft product, it is a little disappointing.

Its price can definitely be lower. It is pretty pricey.

I would rate SQL Azure a seven out of ten. It works like any other SQL database, and it is pretty good.

Azure has multiple use cases. Organizations can use it for hosting infrastructure, for example. There are cloud services that you can utilize. The main purpose of the cloud is that you don't need to set up your own data center, and then you can just use the cloud platforms provided by Azure or AWS, or any other cloud. They all serve the same purpose.

The solution is a stable product. It has a lot of out-of-the-box services. It provides a lot of services that we would typically have to provision on-premise. 

It's easy to use in terms of their portal, which is very nicely organized.

It's a good platform all in all.

The solution has proven to be quite scalable.

We've found the solution to be stable. 

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

The solution should start covering more regions in Gulf countries and other regions. This is due to the fact that other cloud providers are not locally available. Yet this is what people require here. Their availability in the Middle East and Asia regions needs to improve.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years at this point. It's been a while.

We've found the solution to be very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

I'm from a technology provider. We provision these services and provide them to other clients. One of the infrastructure environments which we are provisioning on Azure would be used by probably approximately 8,000 to 10,000 users.

In terms of if we plan to continue usage or not, we are just building it on Azure right now. So it will be live in a year or two, something like this.

Technical support is really good. Microsoft support is pretty knowledgeable and responsive. We are happy with the level of service we receive from them.

The solution is a cloud product. You don't need to install anything. There is no installation process to deal with.  

All products are licensed. The cost depends on someone's usage space. The more you use it, the more you pay. Some are billed in terms of fixed cost. For example, if I provision some work with a machine that I pay for it, even if I don't use it. There are multiple ways you could potentially pay.

We are partners.

We are working on the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution. There are not many cloud providers. Azure and AWS are some of the top providers. These are the two which compete with each other, and both of them have good services. That said, I would recommend Azure for sure.

I'm in charge of the development of our IT solution and I am an implementer of Azure. 

I started with Azure SQL because it's a cheaper solution. It's a good cloud solution, very easy to use on any platform and works well. Technically it's very good. 

I would like to have more tools for feedback. I find that there are a lot of things offered in other solutions that don't exist in Azure SQL. There are also tricky commercial issues. When you use Google or Amazon, you know exactly how much you will pay. With Microsoft solutions, you don't know, it's very unclear and impossible to get anyone on the phone. 

It's the commercial support that is lacking with Microsoft. 

From a commercial perspective, I would rate this solution very low. From a technical perspective, I rate the product an eight out of 10. 

We are using it for processing financial transactions. We have its latest version.

Azure Portal is most valuable.

Service Broker should be added in Azure Cloud. Service Broker is currently available only in the on-premises version.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have six users and two people in our technical team for its deployment.

I haven't used their support. I have only used the online material, and that's complete.

We used PostgreSQL, which was on-premises.

It requires a license. As compared to its competitors, such as Oracle, it is affordable and reasonable.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

It is simply our relational database.

It has cut our costs. That's the big thing.

Cost savings are the most valuable. The DR/high availability is also valuable. The failover group with the built-in DR/high availability features is probably one of the easiest things.

Its automation can be improved. SQL Server Agent was a very big part of the on-prem tools. While moving from on-prem to the cloud, redoing some of such tools was very cumbersome in Azure. There was a whole new set of technologies and methodologies. It should have easier automation-type features to be able to implement such tools. It should have almost a SQL agent type of substance built into that.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is very stable. It has been in our production environment for three and a half years, and we have had only one significant outage.

Its scalability is pretty high. Its ability to scale is very good. We're actually in the process of migrating on-prem to Azure, and its scalability is very easy.

In terms of the number of users, there are probably a hundred technical people who are leveraging the technologies. They are developers, administrators, and the BI group.

The setup was pretty straightforward. The networking aspect was non-intuitive, and it was probably the biggest stumbling block when we initially set it up.

We have our DevOps processes that we follow in our deployment, so we establish those initially, and there was a significant amount of testing done prior to putting it into production. On a scale of one to five, it was probably a three in terms of time and effort to get it all implemented.

For its maintenance, there are probably five or six of us, but one person can also maintain it if required. 

I don't have specific numbers, but we were able to cut down the size of our data center by 80%.

I have an annual spend number, and it is in the hundred thousand dollar range. There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

Even though you have to look at the cost numbers of what you're going to be charged on a monthly basis, what you have to also remember is that your application may need a lot of rewriting and things like that. You get charged not just for the monthly costs but also for the transactions that occur. If your access to the data layer is not so efficient, your costs will go up because you're pulling far more data than you potentially need. These are hidden costs that nobody ever considers. If your application is not written very efficiently, you may actually increase your costs over on-prem versus cloud.

We are a Microsoft shop. The biggest thing that we probably looked at was AWS. We also looked at some of the Oracle cloud solutions, but we went with Azure only because it just integrates with all of our stuff, and it cuts our costs.

I would rate SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

We are in infrastructure development. We are using this solution with Power BI to consume the data.

We are creating on top of this SQL server. It will be consumed by Power BI for the customers, where they can customize their reports. 

I am delighted to use this solution.

The most valuable feature is the moment of data. It's infused data where we can pull the data and post it immediately.

Also, it can connect to different sources. It's a storage mechanism where you can consume the data and post it into the target systems.

The interface is awesome. It's ready and easy to use.

It is difficult to find any disadvantages when I can only see advantages in using SQL Azure.

When you have a subscription, the subscription itself is not secure. You have to add the user into the directory and you will be able to use it. 

I would like to see integration with Snowflake.

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

We are using the 2017 version.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. We have eight members in our organization who are using this solution.

We have plans to continue using this solution.

Technical support is good and always available.

Previously, we did not use another product.

The initial setup is straightforward and the installation is simple.

It only requires you to get a subscription. Once you have downloaded it, you can create it as a resource and you can already use it.

The number of members required to maintain this solution is dependant on the server.

They have standard subscriptions that are not the entire version. If you have a full version of your subscription then you have the entire version that you can download.

When you no longer need it, you can just stop the services. You can reduce the amount you pay, which is an advantage. Essentially, it's a pay and use mechanism.

It's reasonably priced and when you compare it with other products in the cloud environment, it's cheaper.

I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.