MySQL Reviews

• Excellent performance, mainly due to the format of its default table, MyISAM - low disk space, CPU, and memory
• Flexibility offering multiple variations such as Berkely DB , InnoDB, Heap and MyISAM
• Reliability. Although the system runs on Windows without flaws, it tends to perform better on Linux and other UNIX-like Systems.
• Availability
• Open-Source System, open storage database engine
• Used by many websites (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, Verizon, and PayPal)
• It's inexpensive when compared to other common databases like Microsoft SQL Server.
• As a developer myself, I enjoy using it at no cost as long as the associated projects are also open-source.

• Limited storage capacity
• Support for foreign keys
• Stored procedures
• The biggest disadvantage of MySQL is MyISAM system, which doesn't support well transactions (lack of efficiency)

Personally, I've been using it for over 10 years, and professionally for three to four years.

I had no problems deploying it.

With each release of MySQL Server was useful for any little problems that users detected, so I would say it's quite stable.

It was straightforward, thanks to the workbench that pulls together nearly every MySQL task, and puts them into one easy and friendly GUI.

Because MySQL is an open-source , the system is under GNU Licence. The system isn't always free, but it's more affordable. If you intend to sell your software as a proprietary product, you would need to purchase a commercial license, which is quite inexpensive when compared with a Microsoft SQL license.

From my perspective, MySQL is a product that allows you to be efficient, but the decision goes down to the situation and what you're looking to accomplish.

The best features in MySQL, making it one of the most used databases globally, are- 1) Multi-threaded architecture for multiple CPU utilization and kernel threading 2) Use of triggers and crash recovery techniques 3) Indexed Conditional Pushdown 4) Integration with LAMP/WAMP 5) Easy setup with Memcached for increasing performance and scalability

Few cons in MySQL are 1) Increased complexity in InnoDB 2) Slower performance when using InnoDB as compared to MyISAM for using simple queries 3) Only identical MyISAM tables can be merged. 4) No active directory integration as in SQL server 5) It does not support check constraints

MySQL is indeed the world's most popular open source database. It has been designed on the hyper threading infrastructure and supports multi-threaded architecture for using multiple CPU's. It works on index compression with B-Tree disk tables popularly known as MyISAM. Its efficiency depends on the implementation of SQL functions with optimization of library classes.

We are currently using the 6.8 version and, prior to this, used the 5.3. I use the updated versions.

The licensing of the solution is on the expensive side. 

I have been using MySQL since the very beginning, back in 2009. 

For sure, the solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable. We have plans to increase the number of users. 

The technical support is fine.

The initial setup is straightforward and very simple. 

Installation can be done on one's own. 

The entire system is simple to maintain, as it is not very big, and this can be done by one person. 

The price of the licensing should be cheaper. 

We pay a yearly subscription fee. 

The solution is good for applications of small scope or for IT. It is sufficient to satisfy the needs of those with limited resources. 

Oracle is the main product in my organization.

There are 60 or 70 people making use of the solution in my organization. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. It is good for any solution. 

I rate MySQL as a nine out of ten. 

On-premises

The most valuable feature is the fact that the product is cross-platform, because it reduces server TCO, for my small company. This is very important.

Without MySQL, we used a single centralized database.

With MySQL, we can now have many standalone databases where every developer can perform local tests.

Improvement areas are Security and ORM, for example:

It may be interesting to check the user-level access rights at the row level and a robust support to JSON model object (like NoSQL database).

I've used MySQL for 12 years, since 2005. I chose it after using MS SQL for years. It is more suitable for the projects that we make.

No, never.

Yes, the many index restrictions in case of partitioning the tables.

I do not know yet. I've never used technical support services, only the community

Yes, I first used Microsoft SQL Server, then I went to MySQL because the cost is lower.

The initial setup is straightforward, especially in a Windows environment.

There is no cheap commercial license for standalone applications.

Yes, I have evaluated other database solutions. I have evaluated PostgreSQL and MongoDB.

Simple syntax and simple administration are the most valuable features.

It allows us to maintain very large tables without jumping through the hoops that are required by the commercial products such as Oracle.

Multi-master replication could be a bit more reliable.

Counting the earlier versions, we are using this solution for over ten years.

Compared to the other database solutions, there were no stability issues as such.

Sharding is relatively straightforward.

We run the Community version, so technical support doesn't apply.

We tried Oracle for a while but it was too much of a resource hog.

We looked at Oracle and PostgreSQL.

The multiple engine replication is the most valuable feature. This neuralgic process for billing needs high availability and that is where we need this robust, but simple solution. If one server fails, we switch to the other transparently.

It facilitated fast processing of the millions of records for billing of the the call detail records in the Telecom company. The company needed to recover calls, in addition to immediately detecting frauds in the telephone calls so as to block the line and generate large losses. With the help of stored procedures, functions and triggers, we created an engine to recover most of the calls with a single transaction. Thanks to MySQL.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

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

We were using PostgreSQL. The reason why we switched to this solution was that of the easy administration.

The setup was easy.

It is open source and AWS provides a managed solution.

Amazon has come up with Aurora, a MySQL hybrid that has helped us get up to speed without actually thinking about MySQL underlying optimizations.

Catching up with proprietary technologies like Oracle and PostgreSQL is the challenge right now.

We have used this solution for over four years.

There have been no stability issues yet.

We code for horizontal scaling and hence the only thing that becomes important is the number of connections. The data can be easily replicated in real time on Amazon replicas themselves. We have a dynamic solution to read data from replicas and not from a master instance. That is how we scale.

I would give technical support a rating of 10/10.

We did not use a different solution before.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Keeping something similar to AWS, and as easy as Amazon, will be the best thing for any small business like mine.

I did evaluate other solutions, but MySQL stood out because of its ease of use. Perhaps my prior experience has made me be biased towards MySQL.

Until you have expertise in data migrations and what you are doing with data, MySQL can be really easy and dangerous at the same time. MySQL doesn't give you a warning about data truncation if data types don't fully match. Be really careful on that front.

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.

On-premises