Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

I work for a service-based company that helps businesses migrate their applications to the cloud. So, we're implementers. We help with the migration process. 

We primarily use Azure SQL when migrating data from legacy systems to the cloud based on customer preferences. If customers are looking for an Azure solution, we often recommend a Dedicated SQL pool based on their specific requirements. This allows them to store their data in cloud storage services and access it easily through the database.

Specifically for Azure SQL, I appreciate the detailed information available for different formats and the high data availability.

The data availability and speed are impressive, especially compared to legacy systems. The loading speeds are much faster on Azure SQL.

And for other Azure databases like Snowflake, the various features are helpful for development and testing. They allow us to create environments easily and with minimal cost, while maintaining high availability.

The user interface (UI) could be more flexible. It's not that the data access or storage format is bad, but the UI feels clunky and isn't up to par with other tools.

I've been using Azure SQL and Synapse for the past two years. It's also known as a dedicated SQL pool. That's the one we're using for data warehouse support.

For the past two years, I've been using both Azure Synapse Analytics and Dedicated SQL pool, writing code, and utilizing other Azure services. But these two are the ones primarily related to data warehouses and databases.

Stability is high. We haven't faced any outages or downtime during my time using it. So, I'd give it a nine out of ten for stability.

We did have some issues with data backups. Unlike traditional systems where backups were routine, with SQL Azure, managing data backups became an additional task. So, there have been issues with replication. But apart from that, scalability has been good.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have enterprise businesses as our clients. 

I also use Snowflake, which is an individual cloud database. I have experience with other cloud data warehouses like Azure Data Factory, Azure Synapse Analytics, and SQL databases. I use Synapse and upload SQL code to it.

I would rate my initial setup a nine out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy. So, the setup is easy. 

Deployment took an hour. 

My clients have seen an ROI.

Compared to other providers, it's definitely on the affordable side. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution to create a relational database for a client. They were running SQL on-premise and wanted to migrate to Azure and create a single data warehouse.

The best thing about the solution is that it is tightly integrated with Azure Functions and Azure App Service, making it easy to deploy to the cloud.

The solution has a fully managed server, so the users have limited control over the underlying infrastructure. The customization options and flexibility are limited. The pricing structure is a bit complex because there are different pricing tiers based on database size, performance level, etc. 

Although the solution integrates well into Azure’s ecosystem, it has limited capability and is incompatible with many third-party applications or tools.

I have been using the solution for two to three years.

The solution is pretty stable. I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have struggled to scale up the instances at times. Around 80 to 90 people in the organization use the solution.

The initial setup is very easy. Anyone who understands SQL can set up the solution.

The implementation time depends on the type of database we set up. It took us less than a day to deploy the solution. If we have a simple scenario, it will take less than an hour to set up the solution once we have all the subscriptions.

Good documentation is available on SQL, so we do not need a vendor team to deploy the solution.

We have seen an ROI on the solution. Cloud-based services reduce infrastructure cost straightaway. The solution provides scalability and flexibility. 

Also, a subscription-based learning model can be cost-effective. The ROI will vary depending on an organization's needs and usage pattern.

There is no licensing cost for the solution.

I am using the latest version of the solution. Our client had data from websites like Flipkart and Amazon for product and price information, and they wanted a relational database between these. The solution is pretty competitive when compared to other relational databases. We could have used Amazon RDS, but SQL Azure is much better. 

The learning curve of the solution is minimal. If you plan to have third-party applications with SQL Azure, you may not be able to use certain features. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Our customers in the bank sectors use the solution for their websites. Our private customers use the solution to customize their applications on the cloud because they do not want to buy separate hardware. Some of our customers also have their on-premise SAP hosted on Azure.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that our customers do not have to manage the solution. Partners manage and optimize the solutions for the customers. 

The solution is also better cost-wise because if we host on hardware, we will have to change the hardware after four or five years. Also, if there is an issue with the hardware, the responsibility falls on the IT department. Customers do not like these responsibilities. With SQL Azure, everything is safe and secure. The clients pay a subscription fee and have fewer responsibilities.

Azure does not provide features like RDS for Oracle that AWS offers. The solution has to scale up its expertise for hosting Oracle.

My organization has been a partner with Microsoft since 2008.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Almost ten to twelve of our customers are using the solution.

The support is good. We go to Microsoft for every escalation.

The initial setup is pretty easy. Our team is interested in working for Azure and other Microsoft products. We don't require much support from Microsoft for setup.

The deployment doesn't take much time. We only have to check for our client’s requirements. We can provide the services to the client within 15 to 20 days.

Our technical team manages the deployment. The team checks all Microsoft policies before discussing them with the customer. We draw up a proposal and then present it to our customers. We explain to our customers how their data will be added to Azure.

We may need two or three people to deploy the solution. Depending on the environment, the deployment takes one or two months or even 15 days. Once the deployment is done, the solution can be managed through a partner portal. We might also need two or three people from the customer’s organization to refresh or optimize the solution.

The price could be slightly cheaper. Our customers pay for licenses annually.

AWS secured much business in Pakistan because of RDS for Oracle. There is not much difference between AWS and Azure’s prices. AWS and Azure differ in price by a few dollars. Technically both solutions have different capabilities. AWS has a far better capability. People prefer AD authentication by AWS over Azure. We have Microsoft-certified trainers in Pakistan.

We have been asking our customers to choose Azure because they will get a lot of benefits by adopting a cloud solution. Since hardware is not easily available within Pakistan due to dollar disparity, a lot of people are choosing Azure. 

We have been pushing Azure very aggressively for the past four to five years. People continue to implement the solution despite policy challenges. One of our customers wants to host nine to ten applications on Azure. There is a lot of demand for AWS and Azure. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for on-premises production and PR. We sync data from the database service to our on-premises SQL server. 

The SQL connector effectively syncs data to our database. 

The default 1433 port for communication should be customizable because most hacks or attacks are attempted when creating any application or database on the default port. The solution should allow use of any custom port. 

I have been using the solution for more than three years. 

I also used the solution and handled its administration at my previous job with a government entity.

The setup is straightforward so is rated an eight out of ten. 

We implement the solution in-house. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

Our primary use case is creating management-related items for SQL for the development of a variety of items we are working with.

I would like to see the cloud connectivity environment improved.

I have been using SQL Azure for the past year or more.

The stability is excellent because it is easier for us to connect to the cloud rather than connecting to MSSP.

When it comes to scalability because it is a cloud, you can always get additional resources, or you can scale up. At the point of integration, we have over three hundred. We created three instances, housing, roughly about one hundred of them, and then whenever we have additional disabilities, and we have maxed out on the number of instances, we just create another instance and start there, waiting for disabilities in that management. This is easy to notice on the cloud. Your resources are things that you can easily scale up without having to wait for hardware.

We have contacted technical support. The organization has a very good partnership with Microsoft and any area of the solution that can use even the on-prem risk premium platform. If I have issues on the network or with Nigel, I contact the account manager and I am directed to the appropriate team at Microsoft. If other users on the databases are syncing, I just reconnect to how I log a ticket on a Microsoft phone call and engineers are able to work with me to resolve the problem.

The initial setup was a bit difficult.  There was a faulty management style that we created, but we were able to replicate it subsequently because you can do a number on each of the management styles.

I believe the licensing is more on a global scale.

I would rate SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

 We use it for supporting an application from another platform to Azure.

Operational cost needs improvement. 

I have been using SQL Azure for 6-8 months. 

It is a stable solution.  

It is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The designing process is involved in the deployment. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I'm currently involved in setting up pipelines on Azure for data extraction from a source to a target destination within specific time intervals. The goal is to automate the process of moving data efficiently.

Previously, the database was on-premises, but now, with the SQL database in the Azure cloud, extracting information from on-premises automatically makes it available in the Azure cloud. The data becomes instantly accessible in the cloud, making it more efficient for you to work with. It's a straightforward and easy process.

One of the most valuable aspects is its seamless integration with Azure Data Factory. Its value lies in the significant time savings as there's minimal competition or customization challenges. This smooth integration makes it easy for me to work with both seamlessly.

There is room for improvement regarding the pricing structure. It would be beneficial if the cost is reduced.

I have been working with it for more than a year.

The system is impressively reliable and stable. I would rate it ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability capabilities eight out of ten.

I've had a positive experience working with their technical support team. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

I currently use the Sophos server management solution, which is an on-premises solution. The primary reason for switching to SQL Azure is our plan to migrate to cloud.

The initial setup used to be a bit complex, but now it's much easier. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The deployment process is remarkably quick, taking only a few minutes to connect to the cloud and set up data storage. There's a standard setup without the need for additional or advanced deployment tools. It is handled by a dedicated team, constituting around three to five percent of the overall process. This includes individuals responsible for deployment, validation, and user support, ensuring a straightforward and efficient deployment experience.

The return on investment is a significant advantage for our company, especially since we've implemented this product across multiple distributions and clients. The satisfaction of our clients with the product support is notable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I find that they are relatively expensive, especially when compared to AWS, where the prices are notably lower.

I would highly recommend it. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

The solution is used for a lender's business application. 

The scalability and simple management of the infrastructure are the most valuable features. 

They have some problems with the introduced features in the latest version of the server. The multiple query planning parameters have problems. The problem is the automated configuration. Even when they address the problems, there are still issues.

The second issue is to audit the real users on behalf of whom we operate secret servers. Normally in our application, we use only a single connection to leverage the pooling.

I have been working with SQL Azure for eight years. 

The solution is highly stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

The solution is hugely scalable yet it does not support auto-scaling and it is very time-consuming. The PR database takes a lot of time hence one should keep another server synchronized with the dataset. Presently, ninety thousand users are using the solution. I rate the scalability a six out of ten. 

The technical support is very good. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten. 

I would rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.