Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

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. 

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.

We're using it for scalability. Everything is on Azure SQL for us. It is an enterprise application data warehouse, so all our applications are on this. It is useful for entire data warehousing. It is also good for microservices applications. We have its latest version.

It is good for scalability and high availability. It is also secure because of Microsoft's cloud investment.

It is easy to use because it is on the cloud. Creation or making it available through web services is super easy. Azure SQL can be quickly published as web services for APIs to connect with other applications. Because it is in Microsoft Cloud, you can easily integrate with Microsoft stack.

Its price could be better. It is expensive.

I am not sure if Microsoft Master Data Services is included in this. If not, Master Data Services can be integrated with Azure SQL. I have only used Master Data Services on-premises.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is stable. Microsoft has been in the market for quite some time.

It is quite scalable. It is a good choice for any kind of application database, data warehousing, or data lake. 

In terms of the number of users, it is being used by all users in our enterprise. For development, we have four to five developers, and we also have partners to help us.

Technical support is managed by Microsoft partners, which is good.

Positive

We have used Microsoft SQL Server on-premises. We are still using it, and slowly, we'll move to Azure SQL.

You don't have to install it because it is on the cloud.

It is expensive. Snowflake and PostgreSQL are cheaper than this. Google is also cheaper than Azure. 

Its licensing is on a pay-as-you-go basis. It is based on usage and storage.

I would recommend this solution. If anybody is using Azure Cloud, they should definitely use Azure SQL. Our strategy is to have all our applications on Azure, and we will keep using this solution. We will also be using it for our analytical data mart.

I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten. It is a good product, and it has all the required features.

We use Azure SQL serverless or with virtual machines.

Azure SQL is used mostly by my clients for ETL.

The most useful feature of Azure SQL is the queries for manipulating the data, such as the tables and the storage processors.

Azure SQL can improve by adding more machine learning features like other databases, such as Cassandra or Cosmos DB.

I have been using SQL Azure for approximately three years.

Azure SQL is a stable solution.

The scalability of Azure SQL is good. However, it is limited by the infrastructure. The cloud version gives more scalability.

The support from Azure SQL is good.

I rate the support from Azure SQL a four out of five.

The initial setup of Azure SQL is of a medium level of difficulty. We need some expertise in installing, configuring, and deploying Azure SQL.

We have approximately 20 to 30 specialists for the deployment of Azure SQL.

The price in general of Azure SQL could improve.

We have enterprises in Chile, Peru, Spain, Italy, and Colombia that provide IT services. We use this solution every day to maintain new projects and use the on-premise and cloud versions.

My advice to others is to review alternatives to Azure SQL. For example, SQL Serverless, SQL with a virtual machine, or Azure SQL Instances.

I rate Azure SQL a nine out of ten.

We are using it for an application in two different models, the PaaS model and the SaaS model. One is the product, so we are using it as a SaaS model. We are using the other one simply as a PaaS model.

For its deployment, we are sort of using the highest model in which one instance has only VM and the SQL installer on it. Another instance is simply using SQL Azure.

We primarily and generally use it only for DB purposes. When it comes to the Azure part, we can easily provision, scale up, and scale down the generator machine. This kind of flexibility is the USP of SQL Azure.

Its interface and ease of use are also valuable. It is very easy to use and integrate with multiple databases. If I need to pull in or import some data from my on-premises database, the ease with which you can connect and pull the data, not only from SQL Server but also from other flavors of MySQL or even Oracle, is very good. 

The way it has been designed, in the on-premises deployments, the underlying Windows OS is highly scalable but has a very large resource requirement. A lot of power-related and memory-related things are there, which I have not seen in the RHEL and Oracle. I have not tried SQL on RHEL EXEC. On Windows, infrastructure-wise, a very large workload is running on the SQL. This issue is related to Windows, not SQL.

I have been using SQL Azure for two years. 

As of now, we have less production workload on Azure, but whatever is there, it is pretty stable. So, from a very large workload perspective, I can't comment, but till now, I have not found any issue. I will consider it quite stable as of now.

It is highly scalable.

My team initiates the service request. We have unified support from Microsoft. The service request is through the service hub. This is, in fact, a very good change from the point of view of the overall approach towards support. We can open multiple or unlimited numbers of service requests on the service hub, and their response is also quite good.

We started with just a simple client-server kind of application. Right now, we are basically in the full-phased data lake solution of Azure. So, it is in the design and architecture stages. When it is finalized, then we will implement a full-blown solution on Azure.

I would, of course, highly recommend this solution. You cannot avoid SQL Server or SQL Azure if you are primarily working in the database domain. There are a lot of other databases available in the market, but the ease with which you can do the development and the overall support that you get cannot be compared with any other database. 

I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

We use the public cloud model of this solution. 

With Azure, we can achieve very high workloads (~6K queries/min) and, if necessary, scale databases in real-time with only one minute of downtime for our customers. It enables us to scale up on demand and to scale down when needed. 

The most valuable feature of Azure Database is the read-scaleout one: in Premium and Business tiers, the logic single DB consists of 4 identical DBs, the main one (writable) and three read-only synchronized copies; in our application we can use the three read-only copies for almost all of the read-only query and this allows workload distribution and minimizes the concurrency in write operations.

They have good documentation. It's concentrated information. 

Migrating existing application to SQL database had many problems, developing a new app for Azure Database not. 

Their support is nice but frequently their responses aren't effective. 

The documentation is always updated with the latest features but the documentation for the database features should be better. It doesn't specify when specific features will be released. The documentation needs improvement. They should improve the way they explain the information to the market.

It should have better support for UTF 8 (a feature already present on the on-premises version of SQL Database 2019) a for Hadoop integration.

It is stable. 

It is very scalable. 

The initial setup was incredibly easy. Moving from a standard tier to a business tier is not so easy and the documentation isn't so clear the presence of the read scale out copies.

I would rate it a nine 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.