Google Cloud SQL Reviews

We use Cloud SQL primarily as a database service and implement it in various systems, such as web systems.

The product's user interface could be more user-friendly to improve the overall user experience. In some situations, on-premises solutions offer more flexibility, so further investigation into these areas would be beneficial.

I have been working with Google Cloud SQL for about four or five years.

The stability is good overall, but some updates can affect service stability.

The product is scalable. It is more suitable for enterprise companies with specific needs and restrictions.

The customer service and support are good, but the service could be improved for enterprise users who require very short response times.

Neutral

The initial setup process is generally not very complex, although some exceptions can complicate it.

The platform integration with other Google products provides a connected solution. While I recommend Google Cloud SQL, the product choice depends on the specific use case. 

I would rate Google Cloud SQL as an eight.

We use it for managing workflows, workflow data, and state management. We'll use it for tenant metadata information and keeping it. 

We have some BI use cases as well. We are in the automation industry, so, in general, whatever is required for automation, we keep all that information. 

We are using standard SQLs features only, so we don't use any very specific feature assets.

One feature we've found pretty interesting was their support, which is multi-region support. They have good multi-region failure support, and we can just set up there and read replicas directly and we can fall back. We are quite pleased with the results.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It's stable. 

The solution can scale. 

The purging of the data could be better. We don't have a good mechanism to deal with the old data, especially when the data grows. We see latency issues, so we were forced to introduce an in-memory store. Otherwise, the solution is fine.

The enterprise edition is quite expensive. 

I've used the solution for a few months. 

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

Currently, our DevOps team is using the product, and we have 20 to 30 people using it. We have plans to increase usage. 

While it is scalable, I don't yet have practical experience with the process. 

The solution is very easy to set up. It's not overly complex. 

The deployment is very fast. It was only a few minutes.

I'd rate the solution three and a half out of five in terms of ease of setup.

I'd rate it higher if there was general serverless support or good best practices by way of documentation for setting everything up. We are using the enterprise model. Having best practices and serverless support would make it a bit better.

Right now, we don't need much maintenance as we're still in the beginning stages and don't have much production workload.

We were able to handle the setup ourselves. The documentation was good enough to follow so that the setup was easy.

The pricing is interesting. For the enterprise edition, it was almost three times the cost of the standard edition. There should be some more clarity on that. It was not very clear why it's so much more or what the differences are. It requires better documentation. 

We're a customer and end-user.

We moved quite recently in production. In terms of the development run, we were on AWS. Now, some of the workloads we are moving to GCP even though we have been an Amazon shop for a long time. 

We are working on the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is real-time communication software, chatting services and a few other different services running on the mobile apps. So, the primary requirement for Google SQL was taking off the management heading.

It's all built into the web browser, so any operating system will work. It's easy to manage. They help me take care of the replication data backups and software upgrades, updates and so on. They take care of everything.

I no longer need experts in database management. When I say database management, I don't mean SQL commands and which command is better or which query is better constructed. The database management in terms of memory, configuration, disc space, archiving, back-ups, replication problems, updates and so on. So, I no longer need someone or a team of people sitting around, taking care of my database infrastructure. I only have Google for that.

In my opinion the most vulnerable problem with Google SQL is each SQL node is provided with a public IP address. They provide you the option or ability to customize your access control list, but at the end of the day, it's a public IP address.

Quite honestly my usage so far did not test the limits of scalability. I cannot really comment on that one.

I have not used technical support. 

When we were using the Rackspace, we only used Rackspace virtual machines, for our virtual machine requirements, as well as our own SQL requirements. So, we had virtual machines, hosting SQL databases. And, it didn't really work out in our favor.

It was very straightforward. Just a couple of clicks, and we were done.

The pricing is very much an important factor as to why we use this solution.

When considering other options, we considered AWS, Google Cloud, Ocean and Rackspace UK.

I need to make sure that my data is stored securely, transported securely and accessed securely. And the second thing is the number of options I have. Google Cloud SQL gives us more options. 

My suggestion to anyone thinking about this solution is to jump into it head-first!

We work with the solution for various databases because it's easier to use, integrate with, maintain, and simplify backup.

The valuable feature of Google Cloud SQL is its high availability option, allowing for the selection of two backups and two databases. This ensures minimal downtime, adhering to SLAs that guarantee the database will not be down for over a few seconds.

The customer support should be improved.

I have been using the solution for the past three years.

The product is stable.

The support team responds quickly. However, it takes a long time to fix the issue or to help you with the solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It is not expensive, especially considering the significant reduction in database management time.

I recommend to experience the value of the solution.

• Automated backups
• Read replicas
• Integration with other GCP services

Reduced management overhead on the DB side; scripted env-ts (setup and tear down of the infrastructure within GCP).

• Accessibility over internal network, rather than by public IP only
• MySQL clustering (rather than replication or failover only)

Not really, as long as GCP infrastructure is up.

For write operations – yes, as there is no MySQL clustering mode.

Hosted MySQL DB, maintained by DBA; reason for switch: overall move to the cloud of other GCP components.

Very straightforward, just a simple page to configure DB capacity and some additional attributes.

Licensing is not applicable; pricing is reasonable. Slightly more expensive than corresponding Google Compute Engine instance.

Most benefit would be for organizations which are moving other services to Google Cloud.