MySQL Reviews

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.

MySQL is strongly recommended for web applications and LAMP architecture systems. The most valuable feature of this product for me is its graphical interface which allows me to do the database administration easily. Another important feature is its reliability, the decent performance, and the fact it is an open source product.

It gives us the opportunity to create backups of our databases easily and loop through them with minimum effort.

I think that the stored procedures and the development tools to write and debug large queries could be improved.

I have used MySQL for about 10 years.

There were no issues with stability.

There was no issue with scalability.

We have not used technical support. The community is large enough to find the solution when something comes up.

We used many SQL database solutions like PostgreSQL and SQLite and NoSQL databases like MongoDB. The choice depends on the project.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I think that the Open Source product would cover the needs of most projects. In some cases, the advanced features are needed. They could use the enterprise edition, which is reasonably priced.

We have evaluated and used different products like SQLite. It depends on the requirements and the needs of the project.

I believe that it is the ideal solution for a variety of projects with a small learning curve compared to other solutions. It allows you to be efficient quickly.

We use the solution for our applications, as a management system. We utilize it as an operator or relational database. 

I am totally satisfied with MySQL. I like its performance, ease of use, stability and scalability. 

The solution could have better integration and security features. 

I have been using MySQL for more than five years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. 

I have no experience with tech support. 

We did not use another solution prior to the current one. 

Installation is easy. It takes about 20 minutes.

One can do the installation on his own. 

Our team involved 15 people. 

There is no licensing fee. 

I believe there are 100 users making use of the solution in our organization.

I would recommend this solution to others. 

In our company, we are providing an application in PHP language and we need to use another database and we made the decision to use MySQL.

When comparing MySQL to other solutions it is easier to use and boots up faster. Additionally, when you want to query a lot of data, MySQL is better in performance.

The solution could improve the monitoring. At the present time, you need to use third-party monitoring solutions.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

When it comes to stability SQL server is better than MySQL. This is an area they could improve.

We have approximately five users using this solution in my organization.

I have previously used SQL Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate MySQL an eight out of ten.

Speed and stability of the MySQL DB are the most valuable features since we use it as the data store for most of our web applications.

Before we used MySQL, we used to access the data used for the dynamic web pages directly from our enterprise data stores and that was a massive performance bottleneck. With MySQL, the data can be accessed much faster. This allowed us to create more complicated web systems, such as the corporate message system and a credit card paying system.

From where we are, most of the improvements are being handled. With the new improvements that were introduced in MySQL 5.7 and with the testing that we have done to this point, we are looking at updating our web development environment to make better use of the new features.

With the push from MySQL to implement database engines which can provide the same functionality as PostgreSQL and MongoDB, we are looking at application development that leverages this functionality on our current MySQL production database. Seeing that MySQL can provide noSQL document storage the same way MongoDB can and still have a SQL data source next to it creates the possibility of using the best features of both to achieve the desired application result without changing our current infrastructure drastically.

It must be noted that we are still in the process of experimentation to find the best ways of utilizing these data technologies in our current enterprise applications, but not having to move to other database providers to have the functionality means we can experiment without the need to change our base processes. So when I say that the improvements are being handled the MySQL development team have given us access to functionality which we started to look at about two years ago.

I have used this solution for around seven years with upgrades.

There were no stability issues.

We did experience a few scalability issues, but we decided to rather go for a bigger server than creating a cluster and that worked out very well.

The technical support is very good

The setup was very straightforward since the out-of-the-box MySQL's performance is already very good.

We had to do some tweaking over time, but nothing too major.

The enterprise version has a number of extra components that makes it worth the price, but if all you want is a stable DB for web applications, then stick to the open version.

We use enterprise because we use the PAM connector and the DB firewall, if you are looking at the pricing for implementing a separate data firewall, it is more than what you will pay for this solution.

There were not a lot of other options open to us.

Ensure you know what you want to use it for and make sure it is the right fit for the job.

Do not allow developers to tell you what your DB should look like, as that is the best way to performance problems. Use the MySQL Workbench and MySQL Monitor.

ACID attributes are the most valuable feature, as data reliability is a top concern.

The backend of the production traffic happens at this level.

The dynamic scalability, clustering, dynamic replicas safeguard against failures, ease of setup and use all need to be improved.

• MySQL was originally meant for a single server; now with the 5.7 version, they have introduced the multi-master model but it is on the user to ensure that there is no conflict of data. Also, to add/remove a server from the cluster requires downtime and MySQL won't scale load on its own as it has scaled up/down (the load distribution has to be done on a separate layer).
• MySQL does not understand the clustered model, it is not aware of others in the cluster and won't act as a player in the cluster.
• Data corruption or two different updates to the same record are not sorted in the replicas and needs manual intervention.
• The cluster setup is complex and so is its maintenance.
• It is not equipped to take advantage of the Cloud (AWS, Azure etc) and their pricing models (go as you use).

I have used this solution for two years.

We have seen the corruption of data in replication when used with filters and also, with the growing data response time dwindles.

A lot of manual effort is needed to scale the solution; a lot of room for improvement is there.

The setup was of mid-level complexity.

It is a GPL license, only the support is priced but as there is a good community so buying support is optional.

I wasn't involved as this predates me at the organization, but today if this re-happens MySQL won't be the best choice.

Do your research and make sure for your use case that MySQL is the best choice, before making any commitments.