MySQL Reviews

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 store mostly the metadata-related information and that's our primary use case for MySQL, storing a transactional database. 

This is a good traditional database, it supports JSON and it is whatever you need for a simple solution. It fits well, is easy to use and provides good service.

I'd like to see some additional JSON query support in the solution. 

The stability is fine. 

The scalability of the solution is fine although we haven't tested it too much. 

There is no need to contact technical support. 

The initial setup is very easy, it's not a big installation and there's no effort required with maintenance-related issues because it's a whole product and is more stabilized. So I don't recall any issues and getting issues on the database side.

I would recommend this product if it suits your needs. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10.

It is deployed on local servers, and we are using version 8. The whole company uses our database. Our users don't communicate with the database directly. They use a web interface. All programs are deployed using MySQL. We have hundreds of thousands of users accessing MySQL via the website. Two of us manage the database, but it's enough for only one person to manage daily operations. 

As we are using the latest version of the database, it has many functions that have improved it. There are many new features in this version, and it is more powerful in what it can achieve.

MySQL has a lot of documentation, and bug fixing is better in the latest version.

We have been using MySQL for about 20 years.

It is very stable.

MySQL is scalable. We didn't scale it via the database tools provided but on the program side. However, it is easy to scale it using the functions provided with the product.

The support is fast and helps to find faster fixes to existing bugs. They recently advised us to downgrade to fix one particular bug, which resolved the problem we were having.We only use technical support for bug fixes, and the calls are usually closed quickly.

I was able to install it myself in about half an hour.

MySQL is free.

We have also used PhpStorm and DataGrip.

I would recommend that others use MySQL. I would rate it 10 out of 10.

I used it to obtain insight into the entire network and the resources being utilized. The current GUI lets us see the traffic happening east to west and the total bandwidth consumed by it.

• It provides visibility, where something was either broken or in pieces only.
• It creates a unified view of the entire architecture and performance factor, helping to manage the network more easily.
• It has a remote access feature to manage the database from a remote location. This enables in-work collaboration.

I have found the following features valuable:

• NetFlow of the whole system
• Information flow and scaling
• Communication between multiple collaborators and stakeholders
• Its user-friendly features.

The only service which could be improved is its usability. The entire user experience needs to be revamped to meet the 2018 design standards.

The overall service is great. 

I use MySQL for employee service in an OLTP database.

I use MySQL for various purposes. Sometimes I have used MyISAM as a storage engine rather than InnoDB.

When working with a cluster wide, I have to use the MySQL cluster version.

The 5.7 version has very better performance improvement over the previous version.

Primary DBMS solution for web apps developed on either ASP.NET MVC or Zend / PHP for customers.

The community version of MySQL only offers simple backup and restore tools, but it is OK for many web dev projects for customers that want a low budget solution.

We do software development for our customers on both Windows and Linux. Since these tools are available for both Windows and Linux, we can leverage the knowledge of these tools for development on both platforms.

We design web solutions for customers with PHP (Linux) and ASP.NET MVC (Windows). MySQL offers a simple, no frills, but effective DBMS solution with a very low hardware footprint. Since it has no licensing fees, it offers great TCO for our customers.

Only one of the engines, InnoDB, supports ACID transaction control. The best performance engine, MyISAM, has no transactional control support.

It would make a lot of sense to include one engine that offers both very good overall performance and transactional control support.

All versions of MySQL, including the Community Server version include in its design as a Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture.

This architecture allows for the support of multiple options of Storage Engines, so, a software architect can design a sofware solution with MySQL based on a specific Storage Engine that is capable to cater to a particular type of storage use case requirements, like for instance, web applications with heavy read workloads and moderate write workloads, or intranet desktop applications with heavy write workloads.

Depending on the version of Community Server installed is the list of available Storage Engines: All it takes is the execution of the command SHOW ENGINES to retrieve the list of installed Storage Engine plugins.

When you create any given table in MySQL, you have the option to select what Storage Engine (among the engines available) will be applied to said table. If this option is no explicitly mentioned at the end of the "CREATE TABLE" command, the current default storage engine will be assumed.

For web apps with intensive read workloads and moderate write workloads, the engine that offers a good overall performance is the MyISAM engine, but this does not support ACID transaction control, and it uses a table-level locking mechanism (thus, from a performance standpoint, this is not proper for apps with heavy write workloads).

The InnoDB engine uses a record-level locking mechanism, so, it is proper for apps with heavy write workloads. It also supports Isolation Levels, which is important for applications that have many clients doing read and write operations concurrently.

The other storage engines offer support for very specific use cases, like for instance, flat file tables (CSV engine) or memory-only tables (Memory engine).

Getting back to the InnoDB engine, it offers features that are similar to the database engine in SQL Server, and according to some of benchmarks that we have run, SQL Server Express provides overall better performance than MySQL Community Server with InnoDB tables.

My "Room for Improvement" comment is that it would be great if in the future Oracle were to provide with the Community Server edition a version of InnoDB with better overall performance, while still requiring a small hardware footprint.

As with any good DBMS, MySQL requires periodic DBA maintenance. If you leave a MySQL database with no supervision of a DBA for enough time, files become too fragmented and they may turn corrupt beyond rescue.

The version of the product with free licensing does not offer stellar scalability support. We only use these tools for solutions that do not require such a level of scalability.

The version of the product with free licensing only offers community forum support. Because it is a very popular product, there are many free resources on the internet to search for solutions to most issues.

This kind of "free support" is OK, because we do not use these tools for mission critical solutions.

For Windows development of non-critical solutions, we previously used SQL Server Express exclusively. However, now we use either SQL Server Express or MySQL, depending on the customer. We have not switched from SQL Server Express to MySQL.

The admin tools offered by MySQL Workbench are very good. For an experienced DBA, it is rather easy to setup a (MySQL) server for development, testing, pre-production, or production environments.

Implementation was done with in-house team.

With no licensing fees, the business opportunity is great for both the customer and an ISV like my company. This is the case, as long as you use these tools for non-critical solutions.

We did evaluate other solutions, mainly PostGreSQL, which is also a very good product.

We run a benchmark comparison first, then we run a small lab with the development of a small solution with both toolsets (MySQL and PostGreSQL).

In this development comparison, we found that the winner is MySQL. MySQL toolset for development offers much more coverage for both PHP and C# development.

Most small and medium enterprises require many non-critical solutions. They clearly they do not have large budgets for these kinds of solutions, so it makes a lot of sense to consider MySQL as a good option for this kind of development.

The advice is to make sure that it works for your company and for your customers.

Usually, we use the application for our team to ensure the data is correct.

We majorly use the application now. We can use MySQL to read for our select queries. This helps us to achieve stability.

In MySQL, you can only have one master. The master's scalability was always a problem.

The cost towards the locking and the patent. What happens, we will be running the MySQL network, and what happens sometimes in some cases, the master go down. Thus, we have to theoretically play the whole thing. The chances are quite high that you are going to lose some important data.

If we can make them implement the system so we are not losing our data, then magically you could say the system would be better.

12 years.

No. Not on the MySQL site.

No. Not so far. I didn't see any problems in its scalability.

We are using the community portal technical support, but when we are reaching them, the support is always awesome.

I can give them a 10 out of 10. The best.

Yeah, we used to cheat off MySQL. But in the end, it was somebody else's design. So, we migrated to MySQL. We just migrated from there to here.

It always depends on the use case. The first case was complex where we ended up rewriting all of the test code better than MySQL.

It always depends on the scenarios of the requirement - what all the current scenarios come from. Are these application teams or is that someone who is just getting the product? If someone majorly bunt because they don't want to use a single point of data, we may end up choosing any other solution.

Usually, we would pick a MySQL because of our DBS, because we know how we can boot up or pick on a use case.

You just need to identify why and what are the requirements. Also, you need to listen to news feeds regarding the features you are getting into and the features you will to use from it. Take the time to identify and understand.