MySQL Reviews

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.

Small to medium-sized business usage. The main advantage is the very large user base. This enables users to fix about any issue by answering any question. From a technical viewpoint, MySQL is on par with the other open source database solutions.

Due to the large user base, a large amount of software modules and plugins for rapid application development are possible. From an operational viewpoint, this is also a very big advantage.

The large user base and the amount of available plugins and modules. A lot of the software components have been trialed and tested for often more than 10 years. It is rock solid from that viewpoint.

It does not stand out regarding scalability. When the company size increases, the user base having actual experience with (very) large MySQL solutions is reduced.

No, it is rock solid.

Yes, other solutions have better features and better performance.

Not applicable.

No.

The initial setup is very easy with very good online support.

Implementation was done in-house.

Not applicable.

When you know the setup will continue to grow, make sure you have the paid support. 

MariaDB/Galera.

We are using it for RADIUS protocol, which is for network access. We are tracking the duration of user stations.

Table partitioning is most valuable. It is easy to use.

I am looking for the Temporal SQL feature, which basically means that there is complete history for each table. This feature is currently available in MariaDB.

PostgreSQL has something called a foreign-data wrapper, which is another way to access external data from inside. MySQL could have a similar feature.

I have been using this solution intermittently for six months. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. We currently have six users.

I don't have any experience with their technical support.

Its initial setup was straightforward. It took 10 minutes.

I did it myself. We have two people for its deployment and maintenance.

I am not paying, but I am not sure about the exact licensing requirements.

It is always compared with PostgreSQL and Microsoft SQL Server.

I would recommend this solution to others. I plan to keep using it.

I would rate MySQL an eight out of ten.

I'm not involved from the database side as much. I primarily use it for reviewing the data structure as the architecture before I build a data model in our BI tools.

General querying is pretty much what I do, and also analyzing data types and data structures within the database itself. I review the data structure within them. And I use that to build the data model, which we have in our reporting environment. That's primarily all I use it for.

What it would compare it to, from my point of view would be, Microsoft SQL Studio. I find the Microsoft solution a bit better. But mostly in terms of the UI layout, I would say. I just find it a little bit more efficient. But to be honest, I can work equally as well with both.

I've been working with MySQL for two and a half years. 

We haven't experienced any issues with scalability.

I haven't directly contacted their technical support. 

I haven't gotten feedback from the IT team.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I would have worked with our IT team in terms of the initial setup. In terms of connecting to the database and to the data sources, it is pretty straightforward.

I would rate MySQL a seven out of ten. 

To make it a perfect ten, they should improve the UI. It's got quite a narrow range, and there's a lot more obvious to the database side than what I deal with. The UI is not quite as sharp I would say as the Microsoft solution. In some cases, I find that there are better shortcuts available in Microsoft solutions.

If I was choosing, I would probably lean towards Microsoft. That may be just a purely personal preference. My use of MySQL has primarily been from a data integration point of view, a data architecture point of view, and reviewing the database itself, and the data structure, data types. In my role, I don't define data and I don't build the database, I'm purely on the interrogation and the analytics side. I probably would find the Microsoft solution slightly better. But MySQL does absolutely provide what I require from that point of view. So I would recommend it, yes.

We are an IT services provider, so the solution is for our customers. I can't answer for the customers in terms of how they use it. 

Typically, customers are running applications that need to connect MySQL and to store some of the data.

The solution is free to use, which is its most valuable aspect.

The interface is quite good.

The stability and scalability are very good.

Overall, it's an excellent solution. We don't have to implement anything else.

We haven't noticed and features that are lacking.

From a user perspective, the initial setup could be simplified a bit.

I've been using the solution since 2000. It's been about 20 years now since I first was introduced to MySQL.

The stability is good. Neither we or our clients have had to deal with bugs, glitches or crashes. Everyone's been satisfied with it. Stability is one of its best features.

The scalability of the solution is good. We haven't had trouble scaling at all.

We're using the community version of the solution. I don't have any complaint with the level of support, however, it is online and there isn't a support line.

The initial setup isn't always straightforward. Sometimes it is complex. For example, if you are doing a database expansion. For database expansion, you have to configure it and you have to know SQL quite well. You have to juggle a few things, which makes it complicated. However, from an IT perspective, it's a good tool, so it's worth the effort.

The solution doesn't cost anything to use. It's absolutely free.

We are IT services provider, and provide this solution to our customers. It's typically installed on a dedicated server.

When we are working with it, we are doing SQL queries, and on top of that, we are using MySQL to do some reporting as well. It does what we want it to do and our clients are also happy with the results they get. It's a fine solution.

I'd advise those considering working with the solution to be patient.

We don't have any partnership MySQL. We are mostly a Microsoft partner. We mainly use the solution because of the community and the SQL server that's different from Oracle's server. From time to time we have to use MySQL.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. From our perspective, it's free to use, it's stable and it's fast and scalable. It makes it a good option for many organizations.