Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

Our primary use case is creating management-related items for SQL for the development of a variety of items we are working with.

I would like to see the cloud connectivity environment improved.

I have been using SQL Azure for the past year or more.

The stability is excellent because it is easier for us to connect to the cloud rather than connecting to MSSP.

When it comes to scalability because it is a cloud, you can always get additional resources, or you can scale up. At the point of integration, we have over three hundred. We created three instances, housing, roughly about one hundred of them, and then whenever we have additional disabilities, and we have maxed out on the number of instances, we just create another instance and start there, waiting for disabilities in that management. This is easy to notice on the cloud. Your resources are things that you can easily scale up without having to wait for hardware.

We have contacted technical support. The organization has a very good partnership with Microsoft and any area of the solution that can use even the on-prem risk premium platform. If I have issues on the network or with Nigel, I contact the account manager and I am directed to the appropriate team at Microsoft. If other users on the databases are syncing, I just reconnect to how I log a ticket on a Microsoft phone call and engineers are able to work with me to resolve the problem.

The initial setup was a bit difficult.  There was a faulty management style that we created, but we were able to replicate it subsequently because you can do a number on each of the management styles.

I believe the licensing is more on a global scale.

I would rate SQL Azure an eight 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.

SQL is basically a relation database, it can be used for any key-value related data models. Anything which is a table and column-based can be used. If you are an already existing SQL customer or a document tester worker, then I think it is common to go for SQL or Oracle. More present, you have Cosmos DB, it can be used as both SQL and NoSQL databases. This is the database that we are exploring today, and what we are using more.

The most valuable aspects of this solution are the integration with the darknet stack especially Microsoft, table groups, supports major capability requirements, and SQL always-on feature.

The solution could improve by supporting more operating systems.

In a future release, I would like to see more development on SQL servers on containers where you can manage a skill across multi-clouds.

I have been using this solution for four years.

We have more than 10,000 users using the solution in my organization. 

We use Oracle products running in parallel with this solution but for different parts of our business. There are at times different requirements needed but most of the Windows systems work with this solution.

The installation was easy. They have a tool to assist with the migration of your old database to SQL.

We have a database team which is approximately 200 people. They do the engineering, optics, development, and operations. 

There is a license required to use the solution and it cost $30 to do the installation.

I would recommend this solution and we plan to use it in the future.

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for Microsoft Azure SQL Database is storing customer data and information for user accounts.

It has significantly streamlined our disaster recovery plans, making it much more straightforward to spin up new instances as opposed to setting up a new VM with all necessary packages. The normal cost of our VMs with storage has been significantly reduced.

Microsoft Azure SQL Database is fairly easy to use and set up for our DBA teams, who use it for various applications and tools like RabbitMQ. It's easier than standing up an individual VM or installing SQL directly on a machine. We spend less time spinning up the infrastructure. 

While we don't use GenAI, I think it would integrate well with Azure SQL Database because it works well with other Azure applications, but I don't think it would impact us much.

We've had many concurrency issues with it, particularly with applications that do a lot of parallel processing. We noticed that sometimes the Azure SQL databases would spike and peak their CPU units, causing some performance issues for us. It would be helpful if CPU performance were not pinned to the amount of storage you're using, and we could scale different properties of the Azure SQL database independently.

I have been using Microsoft Azure SQL Database for three years.

While latency and availability are fine, we've faced constraints with compute capacity unable to handle our required IOPS.

I think Azure SQL is on the right track. It works well, but we've had issues scaling when parallel processes hit the same database. Large datasets with hundreds of terabytes have caused issues.

We haven't required much support due to our familiarity with Azure SQL Database, aside from a couple of hardware issues.

Neutral

Our biggest challenge is connecting developers to the database. A lot of them weren't familiar with Azure networking, so we had to work a lot with that.

We've reduced costs by about 20 percent after two or three years. We've saved on licenses and also storage costs.

I rate Microsoft Azure SQL Database seven out of 10. It streamlines technical work significantly, reducing turnaround time for standing up a new database from six hours to 30 minutes. Training for developers is crucial when implementing this solution.

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.

I work for a service-based company that helps businesses migrate their applications to the cloud. So, we're implementers. We help with the migration process. 

We primarily use Azure SQL when migrating data from legacy systems to the cloud based on customer preferences. If customers are looking for an Azure solution, we often recommend a Dedicated SQL pool based on their specific requirements. This allows them to store their data in cloud storage services and access it easily through the database.

Specifically for Azure SQL, I appreciate the detailed information available for different formats and the high data availability.

The data availability and speed are impressive, especially compared to legacy systems. The loading speeds are much faster on Azure SQL.

And for other Azure databases like Snowflake, the various features are helpful for development and testing. They allow us to create environments easily and with minimal cost, while maintaining high availability.

The user interface (UI) could be more flexible. It's not that the data access or storage format is bad, but the UI feels clunky and isn't up to par with other tools.

I've been using Azure SQL and Synapse for the past two years. It's also known as a dedicated SQL pool. That's the one we're using for data warehouse support.

For the past two years, I've been using both Azure Synapse Analytics and Dedicated SQL pool, writing code, and utilizing other Azure services. But these two are the ones primarily related to data warehouses and databases.

Stability is high. We haven't faced any outages or downtime during my time using it. So, I'd give it a nine out of ten for stability.

We did have some issues with data backups. Unlike traditional systems where backups were routine, with SQL Azure, managing data backups became an additional task. So, there have been issues with replication. But apart from that, scalability has been good.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have enterprise businesses as our clients. 

I also use Snowflake, which is an individual cloud database. I have experience with other cloud data warehouses like Azure Data Factory, Azure Synapse Analytics, and SQL databases. I use Synapse and upload SQL code to it.

I would rate my initial setup a nine out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy. So, the setup is easy. 

Deployment took an hour. 

My clients have seen an ROI.

Compared to other providers, it's definitely on the affordable side. 

Overall, I would rate the solution 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.