Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

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 company uses the solution for on-premises production and PR. We sync data from the database service to our on-premises SQL server. 

The SQL connector effectively syncs data to our database. 

The default 1433 port for communication should be customizable because most hacks or attacks are attempted when creating any application or database on the default port. The solution should allow use of any custom port. 

I have been using the solution for more than three years. 

I also used the solution and handled its administration at my previous job with a government entity.

The setup is straightforward so is rated an eight out of ten. 

We implement the solution in-house. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

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 have a web application that we deploy on Azure, and we use SQL Azure as a database to store the data.

Since SQL Azure is a stable solution, you do not need to spend time to maintain it.

The solution’s pricing needs improvement because it is too high.

I have been using SQL Azure for less than three years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

Less than 100 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten for scalability.

Microsoft provides good and quick technical support.

The solution's initial setup is easy and takes less than one hour.

SQL Azure is an expensive solution.

We use the solution to store not really big data, and the database is less than one gigabyte. The solution's integration with other Azure services is easy because it just needs a connection string to connect. SQL Azure is deployed on the cloud.

Users who can afford its price should use SQL Azure because it reduces setup time. Since it is a stable solution, you do not need to spend time to maintain it.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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'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.

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. 

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.