Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

The primary use case is to pass services for applications of some customers, where they have maybe the front end in dot net and another language, and SQL service in Azure.

The administration console in Azure, all in one is the most valuable feature. Monitoring the transactions in Azure and the elasticity when we need to grow the databases for our customers.

I think that the cost management in SQL is not clear because we may use some tax to identify products, but in some cases identifying the transactions in SQL is not easy for some financial cost centers. Perhaps if in Azure cost management we have the opportunity to monitor the SQL cost in more detail, it will be helpful.

I have been using the solution for around four years.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

In some cases, our customers need to move forward with their SQL projects and when they try to budget in the Azure pricing calculator some costs appear that in the production environment are very different. This becomes problematic for customers when they use SQL Pass services.

We are an IT company, so I'm an architect for that company using Azure solutions. Many users in many companies use SQL. I estimate maybe around 1,000 final users and technical staff from each company are using SQL Azure.

We decided to implement some forms for different purposes. We needed to implement it on-premises, so we did this on Azure to support the data from the forms implemented on a SQL server, and on Azure on several databases. It's very easy. 

The solution is quite straightforward to set up.

It can scale. 

The solution is stable and reliable. 

I want the pricing to be improved. They should try to lower it for their customers. 

I've used the solution for one year.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale. I can't say how much as I don't have a comparable use case on the cloud and on-premises. 

We have about five people using the solution right now. For now, we do not have plans to increase usage.

The support is good. They have a good document library. If there is a problem, we can figure it out. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not complex at all. For us, it did not take more than one or two hours. It was quick to deploy. 

We only need one person on hand for deployment and maintenance. They are a developer. 

We did not use a consultant for the implementation process. We have a lot of experience in Azure and a lot of systems in Azure as well. 

We have a yearly licensing fee we need to pay. It's not a cheap solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users. 

Based on the experience I've had, I would rate it seven out of ten. 

We use SQL Azure for what we call an inspection round. Inspection rounds are mainly used by an inspector in the field to check the compliance of the equipment, like if a given machine doesn't have enough instrumentation. 

In any kind of plant, there is an inventory of assets. Most companies have an inspector who goes to the field to check the condition and record some indicators. The results of the inspection are recorded in our software. All the data from the inspection round is stored in our database in Azure. That is what we use the Azure database for.

We created a custom PaaS. It's not a pre-built device in the cloud. Azure components like SQL Azure and a web server are combined to create this solution. Our SQL performs better in that space than a readymade device.

The most valuable aspect of SQL Azure is the SQL language itself. It's open and everybody can use it at my company. Also, we thought in the beginning that the response time would be inadequate, but it's actually decent. It's much better than expected. Then again, I'm not a programmer, but that's what I hear from our development team. 

There are some characteristics called "joins," like "inner join," "full join," "left join," "right join," etc. It's a little confusing for some coders. I think that could be simplified. 

I'm in the analytic space, so I would introduce a higher level of coding using artificial intelligence. SQL is quite close to English. They could add a voice interface where you speak into it, and the machine writes the code for you. My weakness in coding requires something automated, so I can be more proactive. 

They should also simplify the security in Azure. We are using the cloud as a platform, so there is no physical infrastructure. We're using Azure components like databases and servers to create an application. Integrating those components in terms of permissions and security is challenging for us. Maybe there is a lack of knowledge on our side, but it's not straightforward. 

The data modeling is not good for me. There are better tools than SQL Azure when you need to create the abstract part of the database design. It's weak. It's not user-friendly, and the notation is specific to Microsoft. I believe we use a third-party tool for data modeling because it's easier to use. Communicating with that tool is easier than SQL Azure. The model is nicer.

I have been using SQL Azure for about five or six years. We started using the solution for one of our clients, a mining company, more than five years ago. They were the first customers to use our solution.

We don't have any issues with stability. The primary issues in the cloud are privileges, security, and integration between applications. That is a total mess for us. When we need to get the application servers access to the Azure database. 

SQL Azure is scalable.

I only contacted Azure support once, and it was decent. We asked some questions, and they replied. I cannot it say was great or awful. They met our expectations. 

Setting up SQL Azure is easy. Even I can do it. 

We pay around $1,200 per year for one customer based on what they currently use. It's mainly processing and storage. SQL Azure is a bit more expensive than other solutions. There are free databases, but they don't have the scalability of the Azure cloud. It might not be affordable for some companies, but it's highly scalable.

I rate SQL Azure eight out of 10. I would recommend it to others depending on their needs. It might be beyond the budget of some companies.

Generally, what I like about Azure as a cloud is the analytics you can apply on top of that data. Azure provides a number of high-performing solutions for data science and analytics. The main issue is that you need to build the architecture to create a product that provides value for your customers.

It's about imagination and creativity, and most of the tools are there. In my case, ease of use matters because I lack the knowledge to explore more, but our development team could do that easily. 

We use SQL Azure to integrate the on-prem resources with the cloud. It creates a replica of our database in the cloud. We have more than 50 users.

SQL Azure is good with transactional systems.

If it's a transitional system, there is a lot of reporting, so the solution becomes a bit slow when it's churning out tons of data, but it's good for a mid-sized application

We've been using SQL Azure for around five years.

We are using SQL Azure extensively. It is still being utilized in the gigabyte and petabyte range for older applications, as well.

We are a gold partner, so we have the option to use gold-tier support.

Deploying SQL Azure is easy. It takes only one engineer to deploy.

We have an enterprise license. 

I rate SQL Azure nine out of 10. I would recommend it to others.

We are using this solution for analytics and business intelligence.

The solution is deployed on-prem and on cloud. The cloud provider is Microsoft.

There are tens of thousands of users. In my market in Poland, there are maybe 1,000 using the application based on the solution.

It's user-friendly. Compared to other solutions, it's based more on clicks, not on scripts. It's easy to manage.

There could be more collaboration with other tools like Data Factory and Databricks.

I have been using this solution for 20 years.

It's stable.

It's scalable, but it could be better.

I don't use support because the documentation is very good, and the solution is easy to manage.

In Azure, deployment takes minutes. It's easy.

The cost is around $2,000 per month.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

My advice is to read the documentation and blogs.

We have a lot of stuff that is still on-prem, and we're only sticking our toe in the water with SQL Azure. For what we're doing, it is a simple database. We haven't yet put any of our harder stuff on Azure.

SQL Azure is in the cloud. So, it has to be the latest version. It is version agnostic.

The main advantage of it is that there is no infrastructure cost. We don't have to host it here. So, there is no infrastructure cost. 

The second advantage is elasticity. We can grow it or shrink it depending on the demand. We have no restraint on capacity.

There is probably more functionality in our on-prem SQL Server than SQL Azure. 

I have been using this solution for about two years.

It is stable, and there are no issues.

Its scalability is very good.

It was straightforward.

We have a third party for its deployment and maintenance.

We have the licensing fee, and we are also paying a third party to maintain it with an SLA.

There is no infrastructure cost, but its running costs are higher than expected. There is the cost of the Azure cloud, which is pricier than expected, but it is not specific to SQL Azure. It is specific to the cloud. You expect it to be cheaper, but it is more expensive to run it.

I would advise going for it and exploring it. We've only dipped our toes in the water. We haven't put any of our main things. We're just toying with a few new applications, and we haven't brought everything across, but I would recommend it.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We are deploying a few server-based applications, and we are using the Azure SQL database.

It provides good analytics. We can see which database is getting more requests, etc. We are able to see everything in Azure SQL. Its analytics are in a readable format, so a layman can understand them.

Its performance is good. It has a lot of features. It has the backup feature, which is not there in Amazon RDS. In Azure SQL, there is an option to replicate and restore a database point to point, whereas we can't do that with Amazon RDS.

It is also simpler and more powerful than Amazon RDS. It also has analytics, and it automatically suggests a few things. It has an in-built indexing function.

In terms of support, they don't give much support.

I have been using this solution for four to five years.

There are more than 12,000 people using this service. Its usage is going to increase day by day.

They don't give much support, but their tech support subscription cost is much lesser than AWS.

Its installation is very easy. We can easily move from one pool to another pool in Azure. It takes just one to two minutes.

We take care of it ourselves.

It only has a subscription-based license.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it a ten out of ten.

We use it also for database management, as a database engine.

We use it for different projects - mainly when we have lots of data and the customer can't afford to pay the license for SQL Server, which is not cheap. That's the main reason we use MySQL or Postgres or other databases. 

The management and the remote access in SQL Azure are seamless.

The solution is extremely scalable.

We've found the stability to be quite good.

It's the type of product that doesn't need much technical support assistance as it works seamlessly.

Some data types are not available on SQL Azure while it's available on SQL Server. It's a little bit limited in terms of functionality. The difference is not huge. You can go back and forth between them. We used to do this all the time. However, it is something to note.

Maybe they need to add the data types that exist in SQL Server, not in SQL Azure. That would make it better.

The pricing can be high in certain countries as Microsoft doesn't adjust for regional pricing. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good.

The product is on the cloud. It's very scalable for that reason. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

Most of the time no one needs support on SQL products or services. That said, the support in Azure is amazing. We never encountered an issue that they didn't solve. This speaks to the quality of Azure.

We also use SQL Server. The main difference is SQL Server is a full-featured database engine, whereas MySQL is based on what we call a file-based database, which is similar to flat files as a database engine.

The recommendation of which to use is based on the use case. It depends on what use case the customer will need. If they don't have the capacity to manage their own server, I would recommend Azure, as it's managed. You don't have to worry about the management and administration.

The pricing is prevalent for everything Microsoft. The thing is, they don't allow different pricing for different regions. Some countries are price sensitive.

I'm an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.