MySQL Reviews

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.

MySQL gives us all of the critical features that we need in a database, but without the costs.

The most valuable feature is that we can implement clustered solutions.

I would like to have features that allow us to jump between the cloud and our on-premises system.

I have been using MySQL for about 20 years.

MySQL is a very stable product.

I know that it is scalable, and in fact, that is why we chose it. We always have it in mind that in some number of years, you have to scale the solution to something different in terms of architecture.

As it is now, our databases are not big. They are critical, but not large in size. We are not dealing with Big Data.

We have never contacted Oracle for MySQL support.

The documentation that is available is enough for my needs.

This was the first database solution that we used. I have used other database products such as Oracle, for example. Oracle comes at a heavy cost.

This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge.

This is the product that was proposed to us and we implemented it.

MySQL is a product that I can strongly recommend. However, it is important for you to have the in-house knowledge to support it. Some level of in-house expertise is necessary, otherwise, you will have to rely only on external opinions. In my opinion, that's not good. Sometimes they have good intentions but don't understand the reality.

I cannot give MySQL a perfect rating because we don't use all of the features. That said, I can tell you that I am totally satisfied with it. It's a very stable product and it's something that is not difficult to deal with.

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 basically using it for our applications.

I like the JSON stuff.

Since we upgraded from 8.0.12 to 8.0.22, it has had some slowness-related issues. Some of the queries that were fast previously are quite slow now. I did some research, and I found many people complaining about it.

I've been working with this for two and a half years, and they have been using it for 10 to 15 years.

We are using a cluster now, but I don't administrate that. There are thousands of users.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

We primarily use the product for small applications.

The solution is great for small applications in particular.

The performance is good.

The solution originally was designed as an open-source product. It has a community edition that anyone can use for free.

The initial setup is simple and straightforward. 

I have doubts about its overall stability. It's something that they should look at.

As an open-source product, there isn't really any technical support available if you get into trouble or have issues.

There isn't much scalability potential in the product.

I've been using the solution for a very long time. It's been years at this point.

The stability could be better. It's not as stable as I would prefer it to be. 

It was originally designed as freeware, as an open-source project, and the community wrote the solution. However, they've made it worse over time.

That said, the performance is pretty good.

The solution is not that scalable. It's not something you should pick if you need something to expand significantly.

While I can't speak to how many people use the solution in our company, I can say that it is used by several departments and divisions.

The solution is open-source and managed by a community. Therefore, there is no technical support available to users. 

The initial setup is very easy and quite straightforward. It's not overly difficult or complex. 

That said, I was not a part of the original setup and therefore cannot speak to how long the deployment took my team.

We didn't need any assistance from integrators or consultants. The setup was handled in-house.

The solution is open-source and free to use. We have the community edition. We don't have to pay to use it right now.

Right now, Oracle has taken over the business of MySQL. Now, it's standard that you have to pay money for the license. That's why we are shifting all our databases, the small, small databases, from MySQL to Oracle. We do have extra data, so we do require a license.

Currently, we are using the previous version of the solution. I can't speak to the exact version number, however.

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten.

I wouldn't recommend it to other organizations at this time.

We use MySQL for enterprise data storage as well as part of the back-end of websites and web applications.

The most valuable feature of MySQL is the informative error outputs of command line interface.

MySQL needs improvements on its diagnostic features.

No issues.

MySQL is not easily scalable on cost effective consumer grade hardware.

I would rate technical support as a 10 out of 10.

Not applicable. No previous solution.

Setup is easy. MySQL of various flavours has community editions to easily test, deploy, and run.

Enterprise editions and support are definitely needed for the heavy users who need direct support. 

No.

One should ensure the availability of proper hardware before any optimization attempt from the software level.

I use the product as a backend to my application.

The product is flexible and easy to use.

The interface could be improved.

I have been using the solution for seven to ten years. I am using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. The stability is good.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. We have four direct users and more than 1000 indirect users. We use the tool twice a week.

I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. The deployment took a few minutes. We need two system administrators to maintain the tool.

The deployment was done in-house. We need one system administrator to deploy the tool.

I rate the pricing a seven or six out of ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

We used different solutions before, but I do not know why we switched to MySQL. I recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We utilize the DB as a data-repository solution for our front-end applications. The solution gives us the ability to run numerous instances on various geographical cloud servers.

Yes, MySQL has improved numerous processes; it has given us the ability to create applications without absorbing major costs.

• Its ease of use
• It's secure.
• It's fast.
• It has high-end processing.
• It can distribute across clouds.
• It has the ability to run on any operating system.

• I think a better front end would be a better solution (web application front end, similar to what Red Hat is doing to Fedora). 
• Another nice solution for MySQL clustering would be the use of Webmin. 
• Also, security measures could always be improved, and the clustering process could be enhanced as well. I recommend using UFW, iptables, and firewalld.

The solution works extremely well. It is easy to install and works on any platform. The price is good because we utilize various versions of the software/DB.

If the user sets up DB up using MySQL Cluster (creates a grid type of design), then we find the solution from a hardware perspective using NVMe, NVMe-oF, 10GE network connections, and 32-100GB of DDR4 memory (dependent upon customer requirements). 

Scalability can be initiated using high-speed connections across IPv6 connections (IPSec AES-256 ESP/AH VPN connections without purchasing VPN concentrators — this can be done at the network layer).

We use various versions, but most of the time this is based on the client's requirements.

After the initial training, the installation worked pretty well. I would suggest setting it up in a lab. This gives the user room to test the installation and configuration process. It is recommended to use PhpMySQLadmin — (https://www.phpmyadmin.net) — after the installation process is completed.

It was implemented in-house. Most of the applications are tested in our cloud and on-premise servers.

60% ROI (There are DLs — direct labor costs and overhead costs, but once it is set up, we image the configuration and deploy our designs in docker).

I would suggest testing MariaDB before jumping in. This will give the user the ability to test the DB before using it. It is very easy to set up. MariaDB is free, and licensing is based on GNU.

N/A.

I would suggest running tests against MySQL, MariaDB, Oracle, PostgreSQL, and MS SQL to determine which one best suits your needs (cost, development, and integration should all play in your decision-making process).