title: Azure SQL Database vs. MS SQL Server on Dedicated Machine
body: <p>I'm currently running an instance of MS SQL Server 2014 (12.1.4100.1) on a dedicated machine I rent for $270/month with the following specs:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Intel Xeon E5-1660 processor (six physical 3.3ghz cores +
  hyperthreading + turbo->3.9ghz)</li>
  <li>64 GB registered DDR3 ECC memory</li>
  <li>240GB Intel SSD</li>
  <li>45000 GB of bandwidth transfer</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>I've been toying around with Azure SQL Database for a bit now, and have been entertaining the idea of switching over to their platform.  I fired up an Azure SQL Database using their P2 Premium pricing tier on a V12 server (just to test things out), and loaded a copy of my existing database (from the dedicated machine).</p>
  
  <p>I ran several sets of queries side-by-side, one against the database on the dedicated machine, and one against the P2 Azure SQL Database.  The results were sort of shocking: my dedicated machine outperformed (in terms of execution time) the Azure db by a huge margin each time.  Typically, the dedicated db instance would finish in under 1/2 to 1/3 of the time that it took the Azure db to execute.</p>
  
  <p>Now, I understand the many benefits of the Azure platform.  It's managed vs. my non-managed setup on the dedicated machine, they have point-in-time restore better than what I have, the firewall is easily configured, there's geo-replication, etc., etc.  But I have a database with hundreds of tables with tens to hundreds of millions of records in each table, and sometimes need to query across multiple joins, etc., so performance in terms of execution time really matters.  I just find it shocking that a ~$930/month service performs that poorly next to a $270/month dedicated machine rental.  I'm still pretty new to SQL as a whole, and very new to servers/etc., but does this not add up to anyone else?  Does anyone perhaps have some insight into something I'm missing here, or are those other, "managed" features of Azure SQL Database supposed to make up the difference in price?</p>
  
  <p>Bottom line is I'm beginning to outgrow even my dedicated machine's capabilities, and I had really been hoping that Azure's SQL Database would be a nice, next stepping stone, but unless I'm missing something, it's not.  I'm too small of a business still to go out and spend hundreds of thousands on some other platform.</p>
  
  <p>Anyone have any advice on if I'm missing something, or is the performance I'm seeing in line with what you would expect?  Do I have any other options that can produce better performance than the dedicated machine I'm running currently, but don't cost in the tens of thousand/month?  Is there something I can do (configuration/setting) for my Azure SQL Database that would boost execution time?  Again, any help is appreciated.</p>
  
  <p>EDIT: Let me revise my question to maybe make it a little more clear: is what I'm seeing in terms of sheer execution time performance to be expected, where a dedicated server @ $270/month is well outperforming Microsoft's Azure SQL DB P2 tier @ $930/month?  Ignore the other "perks" like managed vs. unmanaged, ignore intended use like Azure being meant for production, etc.  I just need to know if I'm missing something with Azure SQL DB, or if I really am supposed to get MUCH better performance out of a single dedicated machine.</p>