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.

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. 

While we have a trader client or warehouse management, we use SQL Azure because the volume of trading activity keeps changing. Maintaining on-premises solutions or infrastructure for this is difficult, as the user demand can fluctuate significantly throughout the month. For example, at the end of the month, there is a high volume of orders and data as traders push their orders to their incoming entries. This can cause the user demand to spike and then drop off again. Hence, we need a flexible infrastructure that can scale up and down to meet the changing demand.

It's easy to use and maintain. If we look at the development of the maintenance team, we are not directly responsible for any infrastructure issues. We have too many positive sides to that. No maintenance, easy to use, and we'll know the limits very well. So, users cannot come and say that these are the problems we are facing.

Mostly, it is the cost. Microsoft services are costly, which is the only problem we face. So, pricing is an area of improvement.

Another downside is that it's very difficult to investigate if something wrong is going on behind the scenes. If we are facing a problem that our application is doing a CPU spike and when we look at the dump of the details, the processes that our application is generating are not consuming more than 40-50% of CPU. But we don’t know where it is going, who's generating it, and who's consuming the CPU. Even Microsoft says they don’t know. They simply said we cannot give you the details. So, a bit of control over such processes or maybe analytics for it is something that needs improvement as well.

In the last four or five years, a couple of clients have been more into Azure databases. So, depending on the client, we use this solution. 

Installation is easy. It has been changed the way it is being done. Once you do that, it's okay.

It is difficult to maintain it on-premises. If you are maintaining everything on your own, you need somebody who knows security. Everything comes into your bucket. So, you need to focus more on the infrastructure side and the maintenance of the application.

I've worked with clients who have multiple multifunction solutions, where some solutions use some technologies, and some use some.

SQL Azure is very well maintained. Most of the services are good. If not the best, but they're good—no such complaints.

Overall, I would rate SQL Azure a nine 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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.