MySQL Reviews

• Speed
• Cost

MySQL provides a low cost and effective SQL Database solution for smaller companies that don’t require the overhead and cost associated with RDBMS tools like Oracle

Replication and HA features, but that is to be expected at this entry point

10 years.

No, the deployment of MySQL is very easy as it is usually a part of Linux distributions and most hosting services provide a MySQL database as a part of their hosting service.

No, MySQL has always been a stable database. If there are sufficient resources on the server to run the database it will do fine.

None that I have run into. For really big databases I have always used Oracle.

There is plenty of support available on the internet. I have never really needed to use or activate a support contract for MySQL

There is plenty of support available on the internet. I have never really needed to use or activate a support contract for MySQL.

Before using MySQL I used Oracle and Informix for RDBMS.

The initial setup was easy as there is usually a version distributed as a part of the Linux distribution.

I have always implemented MySQL through and in house team.

The initial setup cost and maintenance costs are built into the OS costs for all of my implementations and are insignificant.

I usually look at MySQL, PostgreSQL and Oracle.

MySQL is a great RDBMS, but make sure it will integrate with all of the clients you will be using and the rest of your infrastructure. The problems usually have more to do with other products supporting MySQL than MySQL itself.

With most open source products we were building, even the language was open source, such as that which employs PHP. This is where the MySQL free version was being primarily used by many of the clients in the storing of their data. 

There have been some great shoppers which we built with the solution. We use the solution to store the transactional data that we receive from various sites or have the data stored in MySQL. 

The solution is easy to use. As the query patterns are very similar to SQL, this simplifies the use and understanding of the solution. 

Integration is a key feature in need of improvement, as we have spent hours building this just to ensure that a set of data is exposed to a different client, a different world in need of that data. Since we are dealing with open source, which we are now employing in memory databases as well, it would be nice if they were to start thinking along those lines. 

I have been dealing with MySQL for around a decade. 

I have found the free version to be stable. 

I have not made use of technical support. 

I was not involved in either the installation or deployment strategy. 

While I was not involved in those projects over the past year, we do have a couple of clients who choose to use the paid, enterprise version of the solution and who take full advantage of it.

While the solution has, nowadays, moved to the cloud, the one I have been dealing with is on-premises.

Even though the solution has not been off the market, I do not possess the exact figures of those making use of it. It is still being used by a couple of our clients. 

I would recommend the solution to those interested in using the free, stable version of the solution which incurs no licensing costs. 

I rate MySQL as a seven out of ten. 

I use MySQL as middleware to get the extracted data from the database. I work with MySQL as an administrator to set up the whole platform. And I document the recipe for setting up the MySQL database.

We are working with the latest version.

SQL is just a relational database. It is open source. It's pretty good. I have been using it for a long time.

Because I am the middleware guy I'm not the SQL database administrator. If I have any issue with it, I'm going to contact the right person. Sometimes, not because the version is not the latest version, there are some issues with it. Sometimes there's an issue with the server which creates issues with it. Then, when the administrator checks the status and makes notes, it works normally and the problem is fixed. With a big company you are not going to work directly with the MySQL database. We are the end user and not the administrator of the SQL database.

For MySQL, in terms of the usage or as the end user, I don't have much to recommend, as long as the query latency meets your requirements, it will be great. Otherwise, it's the horizontal scalability and you get more parallel in the implementation in terms of the SQL database regardless of the usage. This is probably much better than the vertical in terms of scalability.

I have been using MySQL this year.

If you are working in the cloud platform then you do have scalability because the cloud platform is usually AWS or GCP, and they provide this kind of scalability. If you get some issues with the query and latency or something like this, that is an issue of scalability and you can just adjust the horizontal or vertical scalability to meet your requirements.

But the company I was working with was a very big company. It's more than several thousand people and they usually have a lot of data that they are going to store in the MySQL database. They gather the data from the SQL database and then transfer it like ETL and you get data from all the different distributed systems and then put them into the centralized MySQL database. After that you're going to visualize this kind of data so that you can use the Power BI or that kind of tool to generate reports or to create a dashboard for the system. This company had its platform on-premises, but right now they are moving these technologies to cloud. That's why I'm talking about the scalability in two different ways cloud and on-prem.

For technical support, I'm the end user so I extract data or visualize the data from the SQL database. I didn't get too into the daily maintenance of the database.

The initial setup for the SQL database is not complex and it even integrates into the platform. You set up the recipe and then just follow the build book. Then it works as long as you follow the procedures.

Regarding the price, because it's the open source they have different licenses. Even for open source there's a license for the enterprise. I don't think it is expensive. Also for the scalability in the cloud, the price is based on the usage, such as, how much data you transfer.

For the best usage right now, the trend is to move the platform from on-premise to cloud. Then, you you really have the best flexibility to scale down or scale up based on your usage. You can make full use of the resources and then pay for whatever you use. Because if you have it on-premise you always pay the same price no matter how much usage you have. So one of my suggestions is if you plan to set up the platform for MySQL, it would be best to go directly to the cloud solution.

On a scale of one to ten, in terms of the usage for the middleware team and the end user of the SQL database, I would say it's around an eight at least. I cannot say from a  database administration perspective.

To determine what would allow me to give it a 10, I would first have to get more experience using it on the cloud version.

We are doing POCs for our clients in our testing lab, and if a POC is working fine, then we give it for the production release. 

It has a lot of features. The RDBMS, consistency, and multi-user features are valuable.

We want high availability and replication features, which are currently missing in this solution. It would be great if they can provide an in-built replication feature, similar to Oracle RAC, in MySQL.

I have been using this solution for the last two years.

It is a stable RDBMS. There is no doubt about that.

We have been using it for POCs. It has been consistent for a hundred users. Currently, we have three groups that use this, and each group has 20 users.

I have not contacted their technical support.

It is open source. We prefer it for POCs because it saves the license cost.

I would rate MySQL an eight out of ten.

We use MySQL as a light database engine to provide database service to our web application. 

Almost all of our software engineers use MySQL.

We want to continue using MySQL but it merged with Oracle and the scalage changed. After they merged, we tried MariaDB. 

For two years, we tried MongoDB and prepared for application migration; all because the scalability changed when MySQL merged with Oracle. 

This solution is very easy to use. It's stable and very quick. MySQL is a light database. It's not very complex. It's easy to develop, easy to maintain, and easy to back up and restore. 

Our software team has been using MySQL for more than eight years.

It's hard to say if MySQL is scalable as we've never tried to scale it. 

We have never had to contact support. 

We installed MySQL Database on our server. It took roughly 12 to 13 minutes to install it. 

Installation was done by our software team's engineers — seven to eight of them.

We've never bought a commercial license. We just use the open-source community edition. 

We evaluated other databases and products, including EnterpriseDB and PostgreSQL. The latter was scalable, but it wasn't easy to use. MySQL is much easier to use and install. Before MySQL merged with Oracle, our software engineers were very satisfied.

We recommend MySQL to our customers and other partners. The only problem relates to the business strategy from Oracle. For this reason, most MySQL users are considering migrating to MariaDB.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. We're very satisfied with MySQL. If we could scale-out further, I would give it a ten. We need a database cluster or a scalable database solution for our future applications.

We use it for financial transactions such as money remittance.

It has a community version. When I have to create a new database, I have no problems with licenses.

It can have better monitoring. In addition, the enterprise manager should be able to cater to more than one virtual machine. Currently, you need one license per server. It seems a bit too much to get one license for one enterprise manager. I hope the enterprise manager for MySQL can accommodate more virtual machines for MySQL.

I have been using this solution for a decade.

It is stable.

We have categorized the amount of data we have as big data, although we haven't really been using it much.

We have 2,000 people in our company, and we have over 100 virtual machines installed with MySQL.

Because we are using the community version, we haven't had the chance to contact the technical support of MySQL.

It is easy for us. After a few trials or installing it a few times, we have benchmarked and created best practices for installing it.

It has a community version.

If you are not into command-line usage, I don't think MySQL is for you. I found MySQL easier to use by using the command line rather than by using the workbench. The workbench is comparatively slow, especially when exporting.

I would rate MySQL a seven out of ten.

We only support the backend and only carry it as a database. You can do what you want on the database to create the schema and to manage the rest of the organization.

Errors that come from MySQL need to be more clear. In Oracle, for example, you have the aura and you have numbers, you can easily find the error. MySQL should follow the same as in Oracle.

Stability needs improvement and the backup needs to be enhanced.

We have been using MySQL for years.

We are using the latest version. Normally we do upgrades and we follow the upgrade path.

It could be more stable.

We have 15 customers, but I am not sure of the number of users we have.

I have not dealt with technical support.

It was easy to install. It only took ten minutes.

We have a huge database team as we are supporting many regions.

We implemented this solution ourselves.

We plan to continue using this product. It's good, and I can recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The primary use case is as a reporting solution, data collection, data manipulation, and similar tasks. We install MySQL on Linux and Windows machines for testing our enterprise application.

We are a solution provider and this product is part of our offering to our clients.

MySQL hasn't really affected our organization, specifically because we primarily use it in a consulting model.

All of the databases basically have the same set of features.

What I've been most pleased with is the cost point, performance, and ease of use.

It is very easy to configure, it's easy to deploy, and it's cross-platform capabilities are quite nice.

The analytics features are in need of improvement. They aren't as far along as the capabilities that you have in terms of analytics for SQL Server and Oracle.

I have been using MySQL for about five years.

I've had no problems with stability and its recovery processing, error processing, and things along those lines have been fine.  We always use Java applications and the JDBC drivers work fine.

I haven't had any issues at all with its reporting or its transaction processing, or anything else. 

For our use-cases, the scalability is fine. We haven't seen any issues and we're processing probably hundreds of millions of rows each day. We're not into the billions or tens of billions, so we're probably a medium-to-low use case.

Most of our instances are single-instance databases, so I haven't had to deal with its clustering capabilities or distributed database feature set.

Our clients vary in size, although we generally operate as a small system inside a major organization.

I have never had to utilize technical support. There was never an issue that I had to call in.

I use a lot of databases including MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, and PostgreSQL. 

The performance of SQL Server and Oracle is better than MySQL. The two alternatives have other features, as well.

The initial set up very straightforward. MySQL is easy to deploy and very easy to configure. We can literally bring up instances in minutes.

This product has a good price point.

We had been on SQL Server and Oracle, and a subset of our customers wanted us to switch and use MySQL. We explored what that transition would take and then implemented it.

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing MySQL is to start by carefully evaluating their use cases. One of the things that we found is that MySQL didn't necessarily have all of the flexibility for JSON and XML processing at the time. I know that they've improved it, although it's not quite the same as what you see specifically in Oracle. So, the customer has to evaluate that. For straight-on basic transaction processing, it's worked out just as well with few issues from SQL Server to MySQL or from Oracle to MySQL.

For my use, I'm fine with what they have. I'll be interested in what they'll provide in analytics, as well as JSON and XML processing if that's even on their roadmap. For right now, it's really not an impact on my use case.

If I were rating SQL Server or Oracle then I would rate either one a nine out of ten. The only difference is that they do perform better than MySQL, although they don't perform so much better than it's relevant.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.