Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

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.

SQL Azure is used for the replication of a CRM database. if get information from this database and try to replicate it on other servers and other systems. I'm getting the transactional data information.

The most valuable feature of SQL Azure is centralized authentication because I'm using the domain, user name, and password, for Microsoft 365 account with multifactor authentication and the security has been working well.

I was using a user list for connecting a program in OTF for getting information. The connection in SQL Azure can improve by being easier because at the moment I have to use private certificates for user authentication. I had to do additional configuration to have the connections.

I have been using SQL Azure for approximately six months.

SQL Azure is stable, I have not had any issues.

The scalability of SQL Azure is easy to do.

We have a lot of people in my organization using this solution. We have a large company.

I have not used support.

The initial setup of SQL Azure is difficult and complex. I have to use a lot of certificates, private keys, and public keys to establish a connection.

SQL Azure is a really good tool. I recommend using this solution instead of a normal SQL server, its an improvement,

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

Our core business is to make mathematical models for production and solutions. We don't develop or use software. The data comes with the Excel format stored in SQL and we write complex queries about the data and run it in our models. Our data is not sensitive and it's a matter of having a server for storage. I'm a software engineer.

SQL Azure is efficient and very easy to use. The programming facility is very good and the solution is great at solving problems. 

SQL Azure could offer a lot more services and applications. I'd also like to see some tools that we could use on the SQL Server for data virtualization. That would be an improvement. 

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

We don't run critical data and haven't had any issues with the stability. 

We have a lot of experience and good programmers and IT administrators in the company, so we haven't needed customer support. 

Our implementation was straightforward and carried out internally. We have 10 users of this solution, the majority are in production and engineering, with a couple in software engineering. 

Our license is pay-as-you-go and we pay around €200 per month. You need to keep an eye on this because with scaling the cost can increase quite quickly. 

This solution is more expensive than some others, but not as expensive as Amazon, Google and Oracle, which all have a lot of extra costs involved. 

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

I'm an end-user. I'm a business analyst, so I'm using SQL Azure to do analysis.

Emergency mode is quite useful.

I haven't explored SQL Azure's features much, but I would like to see some better integration with Python. 

I've been using SQL Azure for approximately two years.

SQL Azure is stable.

I think SQL Azure is scalable. Almost 200 people are using it in the commercial department.

I can't say much about Microsoft support because the IT people are the ones who deal with the Microsoft support team. Whenever we have an issue, we put our IT team on it and leave everything to them. They try to handle it if they can or they might bring in some consultants from the Microsoft team. 

I previously used Oracle, but I didn't spend much time with it, so I really can't say. I don't think Oracle has any capabilities that SQL Azure lacks, and it's not used in as many companies and institutions.

Setting up SQL Azure isn't complex.

I rate SQL Azure seven out of 10. 

It is basically hosting the backend of our application that we write as a software development company. We're moving our educational timetabling software, which was historically an on-premise installation, to a cloud-based service offering for customers.

It is pretty much version-less in the sense that we are using whatever is presented to us and available. We are purely using the cloud-based services from Azure hosted in the cloud, which obviously and technically is version-less to some degree. We are using SQL Azure, app services, Application Gateway, key vaults, and storage solutions within Azure. It is relatively simple but sufficient for our needs at the moment.

We predominantly don't use the GUI interface. We are using Terraform as our infrastructure and code provider to manage and maintain all of the Azure components that we are using. They're offering all the integration and providing it through the APIs.

We have come from hosting on-premise for customers, or they've done it themselves with SQL. We've now taken a cloud offering for the equivalent services of standard database management and the inbuilt backup and restore offerings. The scalability is probably the biggest feature that we are benefiting from by being in the cloud.

We haven't had any major issues that have prevented us from doing stuff fundamentally. For its implementation, sometimes, it is complicated to understand what your needs are. It would be good to have a few use cases that provide different cloud variations that match on-premise installations and show how they can be moved to the cloud a bit better.

Its pricing is complicated and can be improved. We need a better offering. Making it cheaper is always a good thing for us.

I have been using this solution for two years.

We haven't had any issues. It has been up and available and working when we needed it to. We haven't had any outages that we're aware of.

There are not many users at the moment because we're still in pre-production. We're sort of in beta testing at the moment.

It probably has 50 users currently. It is not a very large tool. We are planning to expand its usage as we build out our actual software ourselves, which we're still working on. We'll be making that available to customers, and we'll be offering that as a global opportunity for customers.

I have not been in touch with their technical support.

We were just using Microsoft on-premise SQL, and we've migrated to Azure in the cloud. It basically is like for like, as far as we're concerned.

It depends on which area you're coming from. If you're using the GUI, it's relatively simple. Understanding what your needs are sometimes is a bit more complicated. Understanding the availability of things like Elastic pools took us a little bit of time to get our heads around but, otherwise, it is pretty simple. They could provide some use cases for this.

It is hard to provide the deployment duration because it wasn't just Azure on its own that we were having to deal with. We were taking our on-premise product and converting it. Preparing the infrastructure and doing it via the likes of Terraform took us probably about three months overall, but that was more about getting up to speed on the tools to do it, as opposed to individual components such as SQL.

The pricing is actually complicated, and that is probably one downside of it. In some respects, although we can plan for the costs on a month-by-month basis, we are finding it hard to project our costings for it. 

Fundamentally, Microsoft is offering two pricing models, and it is challenging to understand the differences between the two. We're basically on the DTU model at the moment. That may change in the future as the size grows, but it is one of those things that we'll end up monitoring as we progress. 

At the moment, to get a reasonable response, generally, the price is a little high for us, but it is one of those things for which we know that we can do improvements on our code. So, it is not just the service that's the problem; it is some of the things that we need to do as well.

I would recommend it depending upon the use case. If you need an on-premise service, then you would choose the on-premise SQL, and if you need a cloud-based one, then I'd suggest SQL on the cloud. The scalability of SQL in the cloud is far simpler than the scalability of SQL on-premise. This is one benefit that the cloud edition has over the on-premise version that people could consider.

I would rate SQL Azure an eight out of 10.

We're slowly progressing through the delivery of our production system or landing zone in the cloud. Nothing is in production yet.

Its cost benefit is most valuable because you are charged per data unit instead of licensing. You can easily migrate your on-premise SQL to the cloud with a managed instance. That's what it is designed to do. It is easy to take your on-premise or older SQL instance and move it to the cloud. It makes it easy to get off your on-premise SQL and start utilizing the cost benefit of the cloud.

I'm not really a SQL DBA, so I can't go into the depths of the areas that need to be improved. They can maybe make it a bit easier to educate people on how to develop SQL Server in Azure. They can provide some free seminars and webinars and more training in general for easier migration. I know there is some stuff on Microsoft learning, but it would be helpful and useful to have more up-to-date content.

We've been dabbling with it for the last couple of years. 

Based on our experience, it is very stable and very reliable.

It has got Microsoft's backbone on it. It is very scalable. At this stage, we don't have many users because we're still busy migrating over to Azure cloud. In the next year, we'll probably have close to a million customers because that's what we've got on our books.

I have interacted with them. They are very good for out-of-the-book solutions, but when we get to integrations with non-Microsoft applications, it can be a little bit more tricky. You also have to involve the vendor of that specific product to deal with problems related to integration, but, in general, Microsoft's support is pretty good. I've never found it to be poor in any way.

For the number of customers we have, we probably only need three or four people, which is not a lot. If you look at it that way, it is actually quite cost-effective.

It is beneficial in terms of cost because you are charged per data unit instead of licensing.

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. If they are going for Azure, they probably don't have a choice. I would advise others to get used to all the options and ideas of SQL PaaS, SQL managed instances, and SQL on VMs. They should get their head around which one is best for their company. They should make sure that it fits their company's vision of where they want to go with their databases because it may or may not be the best solution for everybody. That's why there are a couple of options, so just make sure to select the right one.

I would rate SQL Azure an eight out of ten. It is best in many ways. There is nothing better than this from Microsoft from the database aspect.

We use it for benefits management in the healthcare domain. 

It helps us deploy new applications very quickly. We have set up everything on Azure, including SQL Azure. 

It has a lot of out-of-the-box features, which is useful. It is easy to move applications for disaster recovery or availability, and all these features are out of the box.

It is easily scalable, and it is faster than SQL Server. It is also less expensive than using SQL Server. It has the pay-as-you-go model, and the charges are based on the usage.

There are some limitations for cross-database queries and features. The migration of data from older systems should be easier.

For deployment, there are too many options, which sometimes makes it difficult to figure out the best option. There is not enough information to help you to find the best option for deployment. There should be more documentation about this.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

It is easily scalable. We have around 60 to 70 users. We'll be increasing its usage. We are gradually moving to SQL Azure for all our requirements.

Their technical support is prompt, but some of our issues have not been addressed, even though the team is trying. We didn't have a good experience with them for a couple of issues, but overall, they have been good.

We got everything ready-made in Azure because our all applications are in the .NET framework and SQL, so we found SQL Azure to be the most suitable option.

It is straightforward, but if you're migrating data from SQL Server, it is quite time-consuming and not so easy.

I am not aware of the exact pricing, but our monthly bill for Azure is around 80,000. It is less expensive than using SQL Server. It has the pay-as-you-go model, and the charges are based on the usage.

If you are migrating from older systems, you should know that CLR is not supported in SQL Azure. Data migration can also be a challenge.

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.