How can we improve Azure Search?

Provide a startup-friendly billing model

For startups it might be interesting to split billing in 2: queries and storage (similar to the Windows Azure Storage billing model).
Our customer will have lots of records from day 1 (minimum 4 million), but the number of QPS will be very low the first weeks/months.

So we might want to start with a shared instance in terms of QPS, but not for data / # documents.

716 votes
Sign in
Sign in with: Microsoft
Signed in as (Sign out)
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
Sandrino Di Mattia shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →


Sign in
Sign in with: Microsoft
Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Dustin commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Nice to know you've added an extra pricing model. But with 2 million records you still stuck with the 200 euro/month. Is the range 1-180 million not a bit too large? The advantage with a cloud platform should be to scale it as you please, right? So why not steps like 1-10 million, 10-25 million etc?

  • AdminLiam Cavanagh (Admin, Microsoft Azure) commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    @Jorge, we have not completed work to allow you to do automigration from Standard to Basic yet, so for now you will need to create a new Basic service and upload your content into a new index within this service. Sorry for this, but we leaned towards getting this Basic service out sooner rather then prioritizing auto-migration.

  • Jorge commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Hello, great news!

    How can I move from the standard price tier to the basic one?

    It is going to be a relieve for us

  • Scott Arbeit commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I understand the desire to generate revenue-per-VM with premium services like Azure Search, but this isn't a pay-for-what-you-use offering at $250/month; it's a pay-for-what-you-probably-won't-come-close-to-using offering. I know Azure Service Bus moved to a $10/month for 12,500,000 messages model (also not really pay-for-what-you-use) but $10 is reasonable... $250 is just too much. No reason this couldn't be stepped in a more reasonable fashion.

  • craig commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Yes, I would like to hear an update as well. Something like $100 a month for 5 million documents, basically a third of the current standard tier.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Any updates from MS on this?
    We need a larger price range on this product.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    The free edition is a good idea and will help us migrate customers off Solr. The standard edition is far too expensive at $250 per month. I think you need some intermediate price points, including something in the $10 - $20 per month range for up to 50K documents.

  • Darin commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Decoupling of storage and compute is useful all around. I'm at the limit of search units because of my storage requirements, but the need for QPS is quite low. Makes running my own Elastic Search in a VM much more desirable.

  • Mike Fayer commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Agreed. We are a startup and will surely start small, it will be many months if not a year+ until we reach any kind of scale. The standard tier will be extreme overkill for us for a long time, but the free tier is so crippled that we can't even get out the gate with it. As such, we'll probably end up paying more for unnecessary search capacity than the cost of the rest of our stack put together, not a very PAASy situation!

    It feels like there's a big gap where a "capable but small" pricing tier would go.

  • Paul Ulvinius commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Many customers, myself included, will likely need to store more than 10 000 docs. With the non-free starting at $250 you'll surely loose many potential customers. Pricing is a major obstacle here, I strongly suggest a more flexible model.

  • silva commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Agree with the others...Please we have several customers on Azure and we don't want to move search to Amazon...

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Entry price is too high. The first paid tier should be under $50/month like Amazon CloudSearch. You are not going to get much use of this from startups. Good service but unaffordable price point.

  • Bill McCrary commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    We need to at least be able to scale back and forth between the free and standard tiers. We have bursts of traffic 5x a week and would pay the standard rate for that, but the vast majority of the week we'd stay scaled down. Hopefully as things move to full GA more tiers will be on offer.

  • Duncan Hunter commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Have to agree with all here. In our situation we have 20000 documents to search and would love more pricing options than such a big jump, which currently is too expensive for us to use.

  • Tom Tucker commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I agree. $250 starting price is a huge amount. I am going to look at other options. Paying the data transfer out to AWS will be cheaper.

  • Péter Juhász commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Please provide a pricing plan for 1 million documents for $10-20/month. The current lowest plan for $250 is unaffordable for us.

  • Tom Tucker commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Your competition is at $45 for the first 2GB and $18 per GB after that. Sadly they are only on AWS

  • Nathan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I'd like to +1 this. The pricing gap from free to the first tier is too large, especially when you consider that there's a 50% preview discount in place at the moment. It'd be great to have something like:

    10Gb/unit, 5 QPS, 5 million docs, 10 indexes, at more like £40 per month.

    Or even a tier for smaller workloads to give growing businesses a ramp-up path through service levels:

    1Gb/unit, 5 QPS, 500,000 docs, 5 indexes, £20 per month, max 5 units.

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base