Azure SQL Database Reviews

In general, if a given business is a Microsoft products based enterprise then it would be very receptive to Azure SQL Database. There are almost no barriers to its adoption. One only needs to be aware of the limitations and constraints as a platform or service https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-subscription-service-limits

SQL database can be used for any OLTP databases. Azure provided another feature, SQL Datawarehouse for OLAP applications.

If you have any apps in the cloud, this is the way to go. The interface and management is much better than AWS, and no one else is getting closer. If you are running just BI, you could go with a Snowflake or Cloudera approach, but Cloudera is complex and Snowflake simply sits on top of Azure Data Storage anyway, and I hear will soon be an offering by Microsoft as well.

Azure SQL Database will be great to use for an organization that needs an extremely flexible database solution or a low-cost solution. Some scenarios such as healthcare or banking may require for the solution to remain hosted onsite due to security/regulations. For most scenarios, Azure SQL Database is a great solution.

Complex queries are a big plus. For a heavy front end users like me, I like a database that can handle all my complex syntax.

Migration was a problem since we had a lot of processes on Microsoft software as old as 2005. Since they are both Microsoft products, I would have hoped for an easier transition.

It's well suited for enterprise applications, as development to implementation cycles are shortened and less risky. The Azure platform and ARMs are our favorite now for budget and time.

Azure SQL Database, like most PaaS platforms, is best when you want to save money on human resources by paying a little more for computing resources. Especially cases where the developer is already deep into the Microsoft stack, such as situations where you're already using an Azure Web App for hosting your application. In these case, SQL Database is a no-brainer decision. Obviously, Azure SQL Database is less appropriate for Big Data applications (where a NoSQL technology or at least Azure SQL Data Warehouse would make more sense) and it's delivering SQL Server, so lots of open source stacks would be averse to it (e.g. Wordpress and most PHP technologies where they want MySQL).

For large databases cost should be carefully evaluated as it can be very expensive. But for medium and small databases (usually 80% of the organization) it has perfect fit. Data replication (for disaster recovery), backup, security and performance recommendation are great tools and work very well. When planning to migrate from Oracle, start first with smaller databases - but be aware Microsoft is always improving its migration tools.

Works great for simple applications where you don't need functionality like cross-database queries. Also good for elastic use cases since it can be scaled up and down easily.

If you are a small operation and your focus is on dollar for dollar comparison to a local server based product, it will seem more expensive, until you look at the big picture of total cost of ownership. In the alternative if you consider the cost of IT with this product compared to a local server based product it shakes out in your favor. Specifically when you consider that IT help can be had remotely from around the world at huge savings and by being cloud based you can get some very brilliant but value based talent by shopping globally. Azure products help accomplish this because IT can add and remove features and resources without any need for local boots on the ground. Where local servers and databases are subject to power outages, tampering by local employees, local access security issues.... It is just built for high availability on a more reliable backbone with secure access from anywhere.

It is used to secure store customer client information. It also provides a multi-task feature. For example we can open different inatances of the same server or a different server, and can perform any number of operations.
I always prefer to use this product, but there are some areas in which it struggles a little bit. For example, it should decrease CPU cost and require less system resources . I hope the next version overcomes these issues,

Sync and migration tools: If you already have a clutch of SQL Server-stored data somewhere and want to either sync it with SQL Azure or passively migrate it via sync, Microsoft has published a service -- the appropriately named SQL Data Sync to accomplish this. Use of the service itself is free, and all inbound data to Azure costs nothing, so you won't have to worry about racking up costs by syncing gigabyte-sized tables.

It's appropriate with anything relating to product/customer/marketing efficiency. I work in consulting for numerous small and medium size businesses. Most of the time I consult on business development, marketing, online reputation, process improvement, and database work. When appropriate, I recommend Azure as a solution to whatever problem exists. The platform typically works out and helps me with clients.

It would perform great in a SaaS scenario. You could use elastic pools to manage multiple databases.

Since they have different tiers, I'd say any business in need of a database could benefit and save time.