Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

We use SQL Azure to store our relational data. Whenever I have complex relational data with consistency requirements, I use SQL Azure Database.

I'm currently working in a small startup. There are just two people using this solution now: a developer and myself. I'm working as a technical consultant and an architect.

Microsoft recently added a JSON feature. I use all the features in a normal relational database, and they're very helpful. I prefer using Microsoft SQL Server because I like the experience and the way Microsoft handles the query tuning and security. These are really good features for database experts.

One of the nice features in Microsoft SQL Server is the SQL Server CLR, which we sometimes need to protect our procedures using C# or CLR. This feature isn't available in the SQL Azure database. It's available in the Managed Instance in the Azure Database.

You can create SOAR procedures using C# and can get user-defined functions using C#. You can extend the database and the data files using CLR files. This feature isn't available on the Microsoft Azure SQL Database. I understand they can't add it because it's a managed service, and having CLR probably doesn't work for them, but it would be nice if they could add this feature.

I have used this solution for almost six years.

I would rate the stability as eight out of ten.

It is very scalable, depending on how much you're willing to pay. We can have up to 4,000 DTUs, but we haven't needed that much scalability.

We had an instance where we weren't able to deploy Cosmos DB on a UAE data center, and Microsoft helped us. We haven't had any issues so far with technical support.

Setup is straightforward. You just create an SQL Server instance account on Azure, and then you can create SQL databases. It's very easy to create tables and procedures. I mainly use the SQL data buckets inside Visual Studio. From there, I deploy databases to Azure from Visual Studio.

It's easy to do the deployment in-house. Visual Studio provides a lot of functionality to make deploying solutions to Azure simple and easy.

Using SQL Server database with all the features will provide a good return on investment. Once you move to Azure, you remove all the capital expenses by having to acquire the license and deploy it on-premises.

When you go with SQL Azure Database, you can create a small database, which is around $4 to $5 per month for development purposes. It's very cheap in that respect. I think it's a little bit expensive compared to other services that Microsoft offers on Azure. PostgreSQL, MySQL, and MariaDB are a bit cheaper than SQL Server.

If the price were lower, I think it would become more attractive for developers to use.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. 

It's a very easy solution. Microsoft also has Data Explore. The entire Microsoft environment makes things easy for developers. It's very easy to set up SQL on Azure. I highly recommend it. I really like it, and I've been working with SQL Server since 2000.

This is one of the applications where we are supporting in production.

If we are using SQL STL, it is a manual process. If we use STL Azure, we will import all the templates from the Azure cloud or Microsoft cloud. There are already pre-defined templates and pre-defined procedures in Azure. We will be using those instead of manual processes. Azure is helping us to be more flexible and handle time scaling.

I have limited experience with the tool. It's hard to describe its best feature. 

It's pretty helpful from a technical standpoint.  It's also dominating other clouds, including AWS and Google. It's better at improving itself. 

The product is easy to set up.

It's stable and reliable. 

I find the product to be scalable. 

The solution is pretty affordable. 

Microsoft has a lot of useful security privileges. 

I haven't really come across any shortcomings. I also have limited experience. We need to do more training and research.

It does take some time to learn about the environment. 

I've been using the solution for six months. 

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

The solution is easy to scale. 

We have more than 1,000 people using the solution. I'm not sure of the exact number of users. We have multiple accounts and end customers. 

In terms of technical support, we do have a lot of subscription privileges. We do have seniors, and tech leads to assist. They can discuss issues with the vendor and technical support.

We have used different solutions in the past. We found that if we worked manually, we would need more resources. With this solution, we have more time flexibility and stability. More complex things can be worked around.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It is easy. We only use one account, a Microsoft Azure account, and we can pull all templates from there. It's got an easy user interface and admin interface which makes implementation straightforward. All you have to do is deploy all the scenarios. After that, it will take some time and flexibility to understand the environment.

It takes six hours to finish all the setup, including completing the installation of SQL and integrating with Genesis.

We find the solution to be less expensive than other options. 

We're customers and end-users.

I would recommend this solution. Microsoft is very efficient and forward-looking - making it less expensive to build the setup for Azure SQL. Even though we do have one Microsoft account, we can directly integrate it with everything at one time. We do have limited licenses which makes it less expensive compared to the Google cloud or AWS or whatever else is in the other market. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is to host our databases and it is fulfilling our requirements.

The most valuable feature from the infra point of view is you don't have to keep any on-prem infrastructure, it is available all the time whenever you want to access it.

The solution can be improved by reducing the cost so more users can be added.

I have been using the solution for 15 months.

Our customers work in the space of small and medium businesses area segment. For them, the way the solution is being offered and used is working and is considered to be stable.

Not much is required in terms of scalability. So the foreign enterprises which are spanning the globe that requires scalability could be different. Small and medium businesses have a presence only in one location or maybe a couple of cities within a country. this is a reasonably scalable solution for them.

The license is based on the number of users.

I give the solution nine out of ten.

Currently, we have 25 to 30 developers using the solution.

There are alternative solutions available like Oracle or MySQL but I have not used any of them.

I recommend the solution.

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.

I'm using SQL Azure mostly for database purposes, including data modeling, data architecture for business applications, and also for Data Lake.

What I like about SQL Azure is that it's similar to your on-premises SQL databases. It's not much different, so it's easy to start quickly on the solution if you know Microsoft SQL. I find its ease of use most valuable, and I also like that SQL Azure is also easily integrated with the Azure Cloud platform.

What would make SQL Azure better is users having the capability of managing the database solution from the cloud, instead of having to do it from an actual machine because currently, database management via SQL Azure is done on a virtual machine or a PC. The solution should have the data functionality of managing SQL databases inside the cloud.

I've been using SQL Azure for almost six years now.

SQL Azure is a stable solution.

SQL Azure is a scalable solution.

The technical support for SQL Azure is pretty good because it's from Microsoft. Based on the subscription you have, support would be included, and if you have a premium subscription with Microsoft, you can get all the support you need.

SQL Azure is easy to set up because it's already part of your cloud infrastructure. You don't need to do any installation.

Your return on investment from SQL Azure would depend on your business applications. The solution will give you more scalability, and more functionality, and would reduce costs from on-premises to cloud databases, so there are a lot of cost reductions. As SQL Azure is pay-per-use, you can control your cost, so in terms of the return on investment, it's more centrally managed in the cloud, which means you don't need so many data warehouses to be managed separately in the infrastructure. You can reduce your infrastructure costs through SQL Azure as Microsoft has taken care of the infrastructure costs.

In terms of the cost, SQL Azure is a pay-per-use solution, particularly because it's a cloud subscription, so you pay as much as you use it, but I cannot give a number because I don't manage the cost or the price for this solution.

My company is using the cloud version of SQL Azure, so it's always the latest version.

There are thousands of people using the solution for business applications. My client is a big company with at least one thousand users of SQL Azure.

In terms of maintaining the solution, it's already managed as a Microsoft-managed product, so in that sense, you don't need people to maintain SQL Azure, but for the application database, you need one person for maintenance.

My advice to others looking into implementing the product is that if you are building a solution on Microsoft Cloud, you should choose SQL Azure for your data warehouse, database for your application, and your enterprise Data Lake needs.

My rating for SQL Azure is nine out of ten.

My company is a service company, so it's a partner, a customer, and a reseller.

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.