Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

My main use case for SQL Azure is for a self-reading application related to portfolio management. In this application, users can have portfolios designed and managed based on recommendations from their brokers. These recommendations are sent to users, and if consumed, they get executed and added to their portfolios, which can be easily maintained through mobile applications. This involves using Kafka for messaging and execution.

Some of SQL Azure's most advantageous features are its query performance and the ability to leverage its benefits within the cloud environment. 

If there are areas for improvement, one aspect could be the user interface. It could be made more user-friendly and similar to Google BigQuery's interface. 

I have been using the product since March 2024. 

The solution is scalable. I haven't encountered any issues with it, even with more than 12 gigabytes of data. Backups are easy to manage, and the server performance is super. Its cloud has unlimited storage capability. 

The solution's support is satisfactory but not as fast as Google's. It typically takes about one or two days to resolve issues. 

Positive

Installing SQL Azure is straightforward. If you have the setup ready, it usually takes about 30-40 minutes, with a maximum of an hour. The only additional step is configuring different servers that send requests to your data, which involves setting up IP configurations.

Regular database management practices are required, such as taking daily backups and restoring them when needed. This can be automated with scripts to ensure backups are consistently taken and stored in the cloud or as physical files.

The solution is more cost-effective than Google BigQuery. Compared to Google BigQuery, downloading data can be more expensive.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten. 

I am using SQL Azure for migrating existing SQL Databases into the cloud. 

The most valuable features of SQL Azure are its reliability and quick scalability.

SQL Azure could improve the feature set. They are catching up to Microsoft SQL Server.

I have used SQL Azure for approximately nine years.

SQL Azure is highly reliable and stable. I have not had a problem.

I rate the stability of SQL Azure a ten out of ten.

The solution is highly scalable.

SQL Azure offers a large number of scalability targets, such as memory and CPUs, and the disc given is highly configurable. The speed it takes to scale from one level to the next is fast.

We have approximately 100 people using the solution, which are mostly virtual developers.

We plan to increase our usage, we are migrating Google databases to SQL Databases.

I rate the scalability of SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

The support is good, but sometimes it takes a while to receive the resolution.

I rate the support of SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

Positive

I was previously using SQL Server.

You are responsible for managing SQL Server on your own. Furthermore, although you have paid for the SQL Server license, it is now based on the number of cores and can be quite costly. However, it has more features than SQL Azure.

The initial setup of SQL Azure is simple because it is in the cloud. There is not a lot to set up. If you do it manually, it can take five minutes. If it is done through DevOps pipelines, such as TerraForm, then it could take twenty seconds.

I rate the initial setup of SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

The price of the solution is reasonable.

The affordability of the solution allows for the swift and effortless creation of proof of concept projects to determine if it is suitable for their needs.

SQL Azure has all the enterprise features I need. To create enterprise solutions for a fairly good price point.

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for content management and publishing offsite for external users. We also use it as the intranet to get the largest professional view of the SharePoint version.

In SQL we tend to do normal queries. The features we use quite a bit are the backup and monitoring and also the export and import tools for data. We use all of these on a daily basis.

We're still discovering aspects of the solution. We haven't yet deployed all of the components, so I'm not sure of what additional features we'd like to see.

The stability is good and the performance is fantastic. Even when we try to do an inquiry into issues we can do it easily. The administration of the tool itself is perfect and the performance is good. On the safety level, we have layers of a firewall. I think this makes it more secure, to help secure the level of encryption and the encryption of the data itself. 

We deploy the solution on four machines and are using VMware. We can continue to add on top of this as much as we like. Scalability isn't a problem at all.

We have many layers of technical support, starting with us and our own team. The vendor of our region also provides support if we need it.

The initial setup is complex.

We had to do some data collecting and we had issues with having redundant databases, meaning we had to do some synchronization between the databases. We did the integration of the networks and handled the clustering on top of the components of SQL. At the beginning we faced some issues, especially getting the servers to talk to each other. We needed to do some workarounds, but ultimately we were successful.

We did the implementation ourselves. 

We have a three-year contract. The cost was somewhere around $70-80,000 for the original deployment, which was about two years ago. In the future, we may need to expand our license to include more company employees.

We did a survey for seeing what technologies were in the market. We ended up with Microsoft because of the general business requirements. Also, we could add the components to the solution for product management. We could add document management, for example, and many other alternatives that covered various business requirements. We ended up with this solution because of the ability to utilize the components. We also had the flexibility of using other plug-ins that helped with the commercial aspects of the business.

We use the private cloud version of the solution.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. I would recommend it.

About 25 people in my office use SQL Azure. Including customers, there are about 400-500 people.

We have multiple applications running for our customers that we can integrate into Azure SQL.

Scalability is an issue because we can't upgrade to new versions due to hardware limitations. 

I've been using SQL Azure for a couple of years.

I rate SQL Azure nine out of 10 for stability because we haven't faced any major issues.

I rate SQL Azure six out of 10 for scalability.

We haven't used technical support because we haven't faced any major challenges, but I would rate their documentation and knowledge base eight out of 10. 

Positive

I rate SQL Azure eight out of 10 for ease of setup. In the worst-case scenario, deployment takes a few days. A couple of employees could do it easily. Usually, it's an admin and a developer. 

I rate SQL Azure six out of 10 for ROI. We've seen a 40-50% ROI

I rate SQL Azure eight out of 10 for affordability. I live in a developing country where cost is always an issue. The price should be negotiable, and there should be more discounts.

I rate SQL Azure eight out of 10. I recommend it because we haven't faced any major issues. 

We use the product to extract data and present it for warehouse reporting.

The platform provides valuable scalability, stability, and robustness benefits.

The product's pricing needs improvement.

We have been using SQL Azure for 3 years.

I rate the platform's stability an 8 out of 10.

I rate the platform's scalability as 10 out of 10.

The initial setup can be straightforward if you properly configure the product and utilize scripts effectively. Once the script is ready for cloud deployment, executing it is next. The solutions architect sets up the basic infrastructure using infrastructure as code principles. It involves carefully selecting resources, such as VMs and app services, and configuring them according to your requirements. Additionally, one needs to manage security aspects like opening and closing firewalls, which can introduce complexities to the setup process.

I recommend considering a pay-as-you-go pricing model initially.

The automated scalability feature of SQL Azure has proven to be highly beneficial, particularly when deployed in the cloud. It can be done remotely, eliminating the need for manual intervention. However, it may become more challenging if the infrastructure reaches its limits, especially in vertical scaling scenarios.

Whether opting for AWS or Azure, the service offers guaranteed uptime, often around 99.9%. Additionally, it supports deployment across multiple zones and regions.

The transition from on-premises to SQL Azure can impact operational costs depending on the setup. It offers options like pay-as-you-use or dedicated services running 24/7. However, it's essential to evaluate your business case thoroughly before deciding.

I rate it an 8 out of 10.

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. 

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.