Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

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 usually work on a valuation basis. When a customer wants to get on to our cloud, we suggest SQL Azure to them.

The preset configuration switches we can select on SQL Azure should be made more liberal to work on. The licensing cost for the solution is very expensive and should be improved.

I have been using SQL Azure for eight years.

SQL Azure is a stable solution.

SQL Azure is a scalable solution. Around 30 to 40 customers are using the solution.

Their customer support is not ok at all because sometimes the tickets we raise don't get authorized.

The initial setup for the solution is easy. It takes around 10 to 15 minutes to set up the solution. The deployment of the solution is straightforward.

The ROI depends on the customer and the scenario.

SQL Azure's licensing cost is expensive.

SQL Azure is a cloud-based solution. We usually require one or two people to deploy and maintain the solution. I would recommend SQL Azure for other people who don’t want to manage their environment. The worst thing about Microsoft is that it has a very bad license agreement that nobody understands.

Overall, I rate SQL Azure an eight out of ten.

I think this product can improve its integrations with business intelligence software. The integrations are always cumbersome due to the approvals, passwords, et cetera. 

I have been using this solution for the last three years.

My impression is that this solution is quite stable. I would rate its stability an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I would rate the scalability of this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. Currently, there are two users of this solution in our company.

I will be doing the implementation myself with the help of a third party.

We evaluated the SQL Server in addition to this solution, but we ultimately chose Azure mainly to have everything on one platform.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

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 SQL Azure for databases that are hosted in Microsoft Azure.

SQL Azure is reliable and scales well.

The solution could improve by allowing the export of the data more seamlessly. It is difficult to copy and back up data.

I have been using SQL Azure for three years.

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

We have approximately 1,000 people using the solution in my organization.

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

The support is good.

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

The solution is expensive.

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten.

We have HR applications including a lead system and also traveling expenses. We're using SQL for items like that.

The solution offers good plugin capabilities. We're a Microsoft customer, so it fits in with everything else we work with. 

The solution can scale. 

From a user standpoint, there isn't really any need for improvement. 

We'd like the solution to be available on mobile phones. 

The product could be more competitive in terms of features, security, and scalability.

We've been using the solution for around three years. 

The scalability would be a bit better. That said, right now, I am happy with how it can scale. As a user, you always want it to be better; however, as of now, it's not too bad. 

I'm not sure how many people are using the solution in our company at this time. 

I've never used technical support services. I can't speak to how well they respond when a customer has an issue. 

We're a Microsoft customer. 

I'm not part of the development team. I'm not sure which version our company is on. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. While it's fine for use online, we'd like it to be more mobile. If it were on mobile, I would rate it higher. 

We use SQL Azure for what we call an inspection round. Inspection rounds are mainly used by an inspector in the field to check the compliance of the equipment, like if a given machine doesn't have enough instrumentation. 

In any kind of plant, there is an inventory of assets. Most companies have an inspector who goes to the field to check the condition and record some indicators. The results of the inspection are recorded in our software. All the data from the inspection round is stored in our database in Azure. That is what we use the Azure database for.

We created a custom PaaS. It's not a pre-built device in the cloud. Azure components like SQL Azure and a web server are combined to create this solution. Our SQL performs better in that space than a readymade device.

The most valuable aspect of SQL Azure is the SQL language itself. It's open and everybody can use it at my company. Also, we thought in the beginning that the response time would be inadequate, but it's actually decent. It's much better than expected. Then again, I'm not a programmer, but that's what I hear from our development team. 

There are some characteristics called "joins," like "inner join," "full join," "left join," "right join," etc. It's a little confusing for some coders. I think that could be simplified. 

I'm in the analytic space, so I would introduce a higher level of coding using artificial intelligence. SQL is quite close to English. They could add a voice interface where you speak into it, and the machine writes the code for you. My weakness in coding requires something automated, so I can be more proactive. 

They should also simplify the security in Azure. We are using the cloud as a platform, so there is no physical infrastructure. We're using Azure components like databases and servers to create an application. Integrating those components in terms of permissions and security is challenging for us. Maybe there is a lack of knowledge on our side, but it's not straightforward. 

The data modeling is not good for me. There are better tools than SQL Azure when you need to create the abstract part of the database design. It's weak. It's not user-friendly, and the notation is specific to Microsoft. I believe we use a third-party tool for data modeling because it's easier to use. Communicating with that tool is easier than SQL Azure. The model is nicer.

I have been using SQL Azure for about five or six years. We started using the solution for one of our clients, a mining company, more than five years ago. They were the first customers to use our solution.

We don't have any issues with stability. The primary issues in the cloud are privileges, security, and integration between applications. That is a total mess for us. When we need to get the application servers access to the Azure database. 

SQL Azure is scalable.

I only contacted Azure support once, and it was decent. We asked some questions, and they replied. I cannot it say was great or awful. They met our expectations. 

Setting up SQL Azure is easy. Even I can do it. 

We pay around $1,200 per year for one customer based on what they currently use. It's mainly processing and storage. SQL Azure is a bit more expensive than other solutions. There are free databases, but they don't have the scalability of the Azure cloud. It might not be affordable for some companies, but it's highly scalable.

I rate SQL Azure eight out of 10. I would recommend it to others depending on their needs. It might be beyond the budget of some companies.

Generally, what I like about Azure as a cloud is the analytics you can apply on top of that data. Azure provides a number of high-performing solutions for data science and analytics. The main issue is that you need to build the architecture to create a product that provides value for your customers.

It's about imagination and creativity, and most of the tools are there. In my case, ease of use matters because I lack the knowledge to explore more, but our development team could do that easily.