MySQL Reviews

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.

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.

It dramatically improved use for several of my customers.

This depends on my customers' use.

SQL and NoSQL use.

When configured correctly, no stability issues.

When configured correctly, no scalability issues.

Very good.

MySQL Support Services by Percona. I switched to Oracle MySQL services because of a better ROI.

There is no obvious answer. It depends.

Depends on the customer's needs. 

MariaDB, MySQL Support Services by Percona.

Stick with the source, stick with Oracle MySQL as the leading vendor for MySQL technology.

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.

• SQL Merge
• Replication
• Views
• Stored Procedures
• Triggers
• Cursors

This is just like the enterprise grade Oracle DB. MySQL now supports replication (master-master or master-slave) of our DB to support our company's multiple geo-locations and PoPs.

It supports the original Oracle SQL operations such as Merge, as well as the creation of Views to your tables. This brings additional convenience to our organization.

The main benefit for us is that it's totally free, unless you need to pay for support.

I would like to see additional side management tools and IDEs.

I used this current version for one year. I used previous versions for over ten years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

We didn't need any technical support. I would guess that Oracle support is top-level.

We did not use a solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was straightforward, user-friendly, and easy. In most cases, if you use the Linux-based versions, it comes as a standard Linux package. You can get it installed by using AptGet, Aptitude, or Yum.

Just pay for any license if you need some enterprise support for your project or any additional support tools that Oracle ships with the enterprise version. During the development stage of your project, you can just use the free community edition.

We evaluated MSSQL, Oracle DB, Informix, and MariaDB.

Go with the Linux version. It is more stable and manages the system resources better.

• 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.

We primarily use the solution for NDB and CG clusters.

The solution has made it easier for us to support our clients in India for a government technology project relating to CG clusters.

The IO segregation in CGE is valuable.

The auto-tuning and NDB cluster has some limitations regarding foreign keys. For example, when creating a partition with shared architecture data, the foreign keys do not work properly. Additionally, whenever we are working with this solution, as our projects are carried out globally, the size of the database is getting used fast. In case of replication and data access with two multiple sites or nodes to become a cluster, you need two separate data storage for accessing the same data from the two nodes. Hence, this consumes a lot of storage space.

We have been using the solution for five years and we are currently using version 8.0.31.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, but I can configure this product with two nodes in case of a rack, but it is impossible in any of the databases. Therefore, I rate it a seven out of ten.

We do not have experience with customer service and support.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took less than twenty minutes. I rate it a nine out of ten.

One person is required for deployment.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good but auto-tuning and the NDB cluster can be improved.