MySQL Reviews

We use it for building web applications and managing data.

It is quite efficient and performs well, especially when compared to MSCS. While traditional scaling methods can occasionally lead to slowdowns, I haven't encountered similar performance issues with MySQL scaling.

The installation process for the most scalable solution is remarkably quick, taking only a short amount of time. While restoration may theoretically take longer, I've achieved rapid setup with my system, often within a minute.

While utilizing a comparable algorithm, is noted to be sensitive, especially when configuring the inner device. If DCDR is not properly recovered from NDC, it can lead to system slowdowns. There is a need for enhancements in the InnoDB cluster, specifically the capability to support more than two nodes in MySQL. Additionally, the inclusion of data nodes would be a valuable improvement. For users new to the system, it might pose a bit of a learning curve.

I have been working with it for one year.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability eight out of ten.

When facing support issues with your server, the level of assistance is generally high. However, in certain technical support instances, when issues are raised and a ticket is generated, the support team sometimes provides a link for further information. From a customer perspective, this approach is not ideal, especially when dealing with critical problems such as database downtimes. The expectation is for more direct and personalized support rather than reliance on knowledge-base resources in urgent situations.

Positive

I utilize Microsoft SQL Server (MSSQL) and MySQL for most of my databases. However, there are certain limitations in the new versions that impact support for certain functionalities. Due to these limitations, I have turned to MySQL as an alternative.

The initial setup was straightforward. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The deployment process, which took an hour, involves understanding various versions, especially the enterprise version, and confirming compatibility with the required features. Installation includes accessing the Oracle site, downloading MySQL, and dealing with complex considerations due to multiple business packages. Challenges may arise during the download of the DVD packet, requiring a careful assessment of the business needs for MySQL installation. The subsequent steps involve uploading MySQL VPN, reinstalling, and following a step-by-step approach, taking about five minutes. Despite the relatively swift deployment, managing dependencies and collecting necessary packets can be time-consuming and pose challenges for users. Maintenance requires only one person, especially if that person has knowledge of system administration. However, incorporating a software manager or other managing tools can be beneficial. Configuring and monitoring these tools doesn't necessarily require constant attention solely from the individual responsible for maintenance.

It is an open source platform. While the free version of MySQL offers comprehensive features, it does come with limitations.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

It's been used as a primary relational database for most applications. It's scalable and could easily be maintained and could be migrated to any Cloud-based Database as a Service solutions which are compatible with MySQL.e.g. AWS RDS MySQL, AWS RDS Aurora, Google SQL. 

It has improved scalability, easy-maintenance. It is open-source and is easy to use. 

MySQL is open-source. There are a lot of open-source communities trying to come up with their own patches, and to come up with their own features, which help MySQL develop faster than traditional databases like Oracle, which is closed source.

The solution is also compatible with a lot of other databases, like Percona, and it's compatible with MariaDB. It's also compatible with a lot of other shared database solutions.

Since MySQL is mostly used as a relational database in a lot of organizations, a lot of other solutions are being merged with MySQL and it's a rather easy process.

Unlike a lot of closed source services, the new features are solely based on customer feedback. The customer feedback of open source is way larger than the closed source application.

The developers of MySQL, which are Oracle MySQL, Percona, and MariaDB, seem to not be focusing much on object-oriented replication. Basically, replication is based on a text level of replication. There is a text level replication in Oracle, that is so similar it can be implemented in MySQL, however, it needs to pull a lot of resources. They have altered their approach for replication. Still, more focus on object-oriented replication would be good. 

They should come up with a better solution than the NDB cluster for better scaling. If they could come up with a better solution for write scaling, apart from the NDB cluster, which is supported by all open source communities, that would be great. Although the NDB cluster, is an open-source tool, it's not widely supported as a solution.

The latest 8.0 version has come up with whole new features. 

I've been working on Relational Database MySQL throughout my career, i.e. for 14 years. This relational database MySQL is evolved from its MyISAM only engine to InnoDB and is now compatible with other database engines too. e.g. NDB, Galera. 

MySQL is reliable. If you are talking about it in terms of relational databases, MySQL is pretty stable. If you want to go ahead with a quite secure database like any PCI database or a customer-related database or even financial data, it's still feasible to migrate to MySQL. 

There are a lot of features provided by Oracle MySQL, Percona, and MariaDB. They all have their own replication cluster. Percona has XtraDB, MariaDB has GaleraDB, Oracle MySQL has its own cluster as well. MySQL replication is common in all three MySQL flavors. MySQL replication is an excellent read-scalable feature, which has also evolved a lot from its earliest versions to the latest 8.0 version.

The NDB cluster, which has been supported and developed by Oracle, and is based on MySQL, is different than all of the other MySQL replication cluster solutions. It's both read and write scalable. All other cluster features work well for read scaling. NDB cluster is the only cluster feature recorded by Oracle MySQL, which is write scalable as well as re-scalable.

The solution seems to have plenty of technical support due to the fact that there are three companies who are product owners, and therefore there are three companies who are supporting MySQL. They are: Oracle, Percona, and MariaDB. They're doing pretty well. 

There are a lot of companies also that support their customers. This is the good thing about any software which is open-source. A lot of open source communities come up with their own features and they try to patch up with the original source. 

The initial setup has evolved a lot. It's pretty straight forward whether you're using Mac, Windows, Linux, etc. You can set it up on almost every operating system. 

It's supported by the open-source community, and they have plenty of documentation online that users can reference for assistance. If you are working in almost any operating system and you have any questions related to the installation, you'll find the documentation you need.

I am not sure, what the licensing costs are for the solution. From my experience, there is no straightforward cost. You can get that cost from the Oracle website about the Oracle MySQL licensing costs, however, it's not a straightforward price quote for everyone.

If you are an existing customer, you can negotiate and you can get a better quote. The pricing on the website may be for new customers. That said, you can still negotiate. The same is true for Percona and MariaDB as well. 

We are using MySQL 5.6, 5.7, and MySQL 8.0. 

In terms of advice, I'd say when implementing MySQL, if a company has been using any previous relational database, like Oracle, Microsoft SQL or DB2, the easiest way to migrate from any database is from Oracle to MySQL. There'll be some challenges from Microsoft SQL, as well as from DB2 to MySQL. Any existing application which is working with the Oracle database as a backend database, DB2 database as a backend database, or Microsoft as the backend database, should still work fine with MySQL, with minimal code changes. 

MySQL is a product supported by a lot of applications and a lot of organizations. Almost every client and every API would be able to support MySQL. There would still need to be a lot of testing, however, I feel almost all of the applications which need a relational database for their database solution, could leverage out of MySQL. 

I like the simplistic view of MySQL to build custom queries and things like that as compared to SQL Server, which seems more cluttered.

SQL Server has a query analyzer. MySQL pretty much does the same, and performance-wise, it has less overhead for connecting to our ERP system. It seems more responsive and cleaner. With MySQL, you get what you need without any overbloating, for which Microsoft is known. That's why they have so many constant security patches for everything because there is so much stuff, which degrades performance.

The GUI interface probably can be improved. Let us say I want to see the relationships in the database. In the query analyzer, I would like to go and drop the tables and create relationships between the tables. I haven't found a feature like that in MySQL. It was a shortcoming even in SQL Server.

MySQL can have more performance monitoring tools. I know Google has these tools, but within MySQL, there are not that many tools to monitor things like performance and database locking. They might be in there, and I might not be familiar enough to know where they are. I am a pretty new user of MySQL.

I have been using MySQL for three months.

It has very good stability. We haven't had any issues with it.

It has good scalability. You can use the Google interface to build it on the cloud. If you start noticing performance issues or you see it taking up memory or resources, you can add another processor. It is pretty easy to do. Right now, we are in beta. We haven't rolled it out completely to the people.

I haven't had to use their technical support. They have plenty of online resources. If you have any problem, you can just search for it and find the answer. Somewhere, someone has done it before.

The ERP company that we work with is moving away from SQL to MySQL. From my understanding, it is because of the cost. MySQL is also more streamlined and gives them what they need. 

Even though I am a SQL Server person, MySQL has come a long way from what it used to be. They have made great strides. It seems like Google is moving more and more to it. In Google Data Studio, which gives you an interface to build dashboards, when you try and connect to new resources, you will notice they prefer MySQL on the cloud or a private server. Google is leaning more towards the MySQL side of things, and they make it very easy. It is a lot more work trying to connect to SQL Server. MySQL seems to be the preferred cloud database that people are going for.

The initial setup was straightforward. MYSQL installation has fewer options than a SQL Server installation, which has endless options. MySQL installation is more straightforward and streamlined. It doesn't have a lot of extra features. It is just a database. It is a database engine that gives you what you need, and I like it.

I am doing one installation right now on Google Cloud. I am building an instance of MySQL. It is just more simplistic. It is more to the point and what you need. In SQL Server, you need to dive into the endless options, and you use maybe 60% of what is there. There is a lot of stuff that people don't use, which you end up uninstalling because it affects the server performance, and it is a service that you are not even using. There is a full install as well as a custom install with SQL Server. If you go for the full install, it throws everything into the server, and you start noticing performance issues. Then you realize that there are services that you are not even using. Some places don't even use analytics or reporting services.

Microsoft licensing for SQL Server is probably ten times more expensive. I used to work for the government, and I remember when we were looking into upgrading to the enterprise version of SQL Server 2019, the licensing was going to cost 350,000. To get the equivalent in the cloud, it was going to be about four grand to get the same processing power and everything else. With MySQL, it was going to be about 300 for the same licensing. 

Cost-wise, for sure, there is a huge difference. Would you prefer to pay 300 a month or 3,000 to have the same amount of data resources? You might lose a few options that you need, but it isn't worth the price difference.

If you want just a database for data storage, I would recommend MySQL. If you want something that has everything in it, such as reporting services and analytics, SQL Server might be better. Cost-wise, MySQL is almost pricing itself out.

I would rate MySQL an eight out of ten for ease of use, especially for someone who has never used it and implemented it. It was pretty straightforward to implement it. It gives you what you need. It surely provides the basics such as data storage, setting up the tables, etc.

MySQL is easy and convenient for me. I don't need to rely on anyone. I can write the code and extract the information. It is fast if you know how to use it. The solution is not expensive, and most of the developers know how to use it. It is easy to create tables. The solution is stable and has good performance. The connection with AWS gives regular updates, which is manual otherwise and a nightmare. 

The tool needs to improve table visualization.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

MySQL is stable and fast. 

The tool is scalable. Around 15-20 developers use the tool in my company. 

MySQL's technical support is good. 

The tool's installation is easy. You must download the app and log in using a password and username. 

I rate the product a ten out of ten. 

MySQL can handle multiple rules of a database within seconds and extract required information for the business case, especially with well-optimized queries.

There should be an arrangement for end-users to get trained to use the tool. End-users don't know many things which MySQL offers to its users. So, there is a need for the end-users to upgrade themselves. Also, the tool is already good the way it is currently owing to its features like multithreading which helps with the queries quickly. In short, if one goes for the complex part, if one uses it for a very specialized case, then that person needs to write a very complex query involving multiple tables, multiple joints, and multiple conditions based on whatever scenario one uses.

Improvement-wise, a graphical interface could be added for new users, eliminating the need to memorize the complex syntax.

I have used MySQL for five and a half years in my company, but I have used the tool for around ten years.

MySQL is a stable tool. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

MySQL is a scalable tool. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. My whole company directly or indirectly uses the tool since we are involved in analytics. My company is an enterprise-sized one.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Since everyone in the industry we are a part of uses MySQL servers, we have also used the same.

The solution's initial setup depends upon the use cases. If you're using it for a simple thing, it's a simple process. But, my problems and statements are quite complex, and I use them to get information, like how the customers perform based on cohort analysis. Also, my use cases are complex, so I have to write complex queries. Overall, the setup process depends upon the scenario.

The installation process is not difficult since it gets pre-installed in all the machines after it is done once. Since the installation process is neither very easy nor difficult, I can rate it somewhere around seven out of ten.

The IT Department handled the deployment process in my current company. Based on my experience deploying the solution in my previous company, its deployment was not difficult. Since everything was already deployed in my current company, we are using the tool as front-end users. When planning to start using the solution, we need to launch SQL server before using it. Also, based on whatever datasets are there, we need to get the permissions for those data sets, after which we are good to go.

MySQL requires maintenance, while the IT department handles the maintenance of SQL server. I am not involved in managing the upgrading part of the tool. Every year, MySQL keeps releasing new versions with new functionalities.

My suggestion to those planning to use the solution is to learn about it and utilize it for their specific scenarios. It is a powerful tool that can perform multiple analyses and reveal hidden insights within multi-million or billion-row datasets that may not be immediately visible to the human eye. The tool also offers many use cases for machine learning. I encourage users to plan and explore the tool to discover its full potential. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

I've used MySQL in the past for a variety of tasks. 

I once used MySQL when I created a PostgreSQL database for club management tasks. This included handling registrations, events, and mailing notifications for payments and event details. It served as a source service provider.

The response time for support could be faster. 

MySQL's performance requires attention. For optimal performance, one should review and sometimes revise the code, particularly when using server-side scripting. To optimize performance, it's crucial to pay attention to your code. Sometimes, you may need to review your code to ensure it's efficient and doesn't unnecessarily access the database multiple times.

The performance issues I encountered were not due to MySQL itself but were related to my coding approach.

I have been using MySQL for ten years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

For my use case, it is okay. Basically, it's just me for development. Previously, all clients or members of the club accessed it. When there was an event, maybe 30 to 40 people would try to access the system simultaneously.

I'm using SiteGround for hosting the website and its servers. I've chosen a package with more than enough CPU and memory to avoid trouble.

I've used technical support for several times. Most of the time, it was quite okay with quick responses. Once, I had performance issues. It took some time to convince them, but they guided me on improving performance by changing some database functions in MySQL. It was a longer process, but it was eventually resolved.

Positive

The initial setup was easy. I work in an agile way, which means coding and deploying quickly. We had a few internal users but many external users accessing the website, though not the back office.

The back office was developed over years. It's not just about having an idea and executing it; it's more about testing and adapting the process, unlike the waterfall method, where you end up with something that may not be immediately usable.

As the main user, our deployment process wasn't as strict as in a big company. I conducted tests, had a testing process with use cases to review, and then deployed. It was less rigid than in larger companies, where there are separate testing and development environments.

I  have seen value and impact from using MySQL

I don't pay for a license. 

With my previous employer, we used Oracle.

Don't just use MySQL on its own. Always use it with other software around it. MySQL is very stable, but pay attention to the software you use with it, whether you develop everything from scratch or use open-source systems like CMS.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would recommend using the solution. 

We use the tool in projects with customer records in the database. There will be a front-end application to search and find specific data from the tool. In another project, there are product listings, and the front end fetches data from the tool and shows it in a gallery or list view on the web page or mobile application.

We used MySQL in a project for a nonprofit museum. They have a lot of donors. They have a large repository of customers who give donations. They categorize the customers based on the money they give, such as steward level, platinum level, and diamond level. The client may send out an invite for an event for a certain group of customers, such as the patrons who donate the most. MySQL helped us in that project.

The optimized process is valuable. I have seen websites that take ages to load and show the data. Many web applications with lakhs and lakhs of data will take forever to show specific results. The database performance is optimal for the application we developed. The speed is very good. There were no delays in fetching data from the back end and showing it on the front end.

At times, the autoscaling does not happen when there is a surge in load. We had to depend on manual scaling. It led to website crashes in the past.

We have been using the solution for projects running for the past five years.

Scalability is one area in which we are very cost-sensitive. We always closely monitor the charges to increase the server scale. It will help us use more space in the DB if there is an economical way for us to pick up larger servers. We have more than six lakh end users.

Most of our projects are on the cloud. A very small number are on the client's premises.

We are continuing to use the tool because it's been cost-effective. It's producing revenue for us. It's a beneficial solution.

The tool is open source. We choose open-source software mostly. We integrate a very limited number of licensed software.

I have not seen any incident with a security violation or data breach. I have not contacted the technical support team. The infrastructure team contacts the technical support team regarding server-related issues. There is a LAMP stack. The Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP combination seems to be working well for enterprises' modern web applications.

Overall, the integration works well. However, initially, we worked with a third-party integration team to fix the APIs, query, and response code. Initially, some technical work will be needed. Once it is done, the integration turns seamless.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We sell MySQL to customers who need to build second tier applications, not their core application. For some of our customers, when they are planning to build their second tier application, they will choose MySQL rather than Oracle which is more expensive.

The one interesting thing about this product is that it is open source. It comes from an open source product. MySQL has been positioned as open source, but it also provides support. Therefore, for a senior level product like MySQL it is different than a product like MariaDB or MongoDB which are also open source databases but they depend on the community for support. 

People just assume it is less expensive. The product is not expensive. But they also have a strong principle behind data backup and supporting that product. That's why it's quite interesting, because it's open source but it has a principle behind it.

In terms of what could be improved, some of the features that Oracle has, MySQL also has. Like if a customer is looking for a high availability solution, a security solution, a monetary solution, they can have all that in an expensive product like Oracle but they can also have it when they're using MySQL.

Every product has their own pros and cons, and also has their own market. So if the customer is already using or has already used Oracle for a long time they will know the look and feel and the character of this database that can fit into their business.

They will not choose MySQL over Oracle if they already know about Oracle. But if they start to build a new application before they are creating a secondary application then they may not be familiar with Oracle and they will try MySQL. Maybe they will like it because they will see that this database also has complete features. If they try Oracle they find the same features but different pricing. In certain things, MySQL cannot have the same benefits as Oracle but for some customers who are already using Oracle, you're not going to move to another product even if it's more expensive.

And MySQL is a cheaper product.

That's why I say that MySQL has many of the same features as Oracle. Both of them have high security.

The customer that comes from a small or medium business will prefer to choose MySQL rather than the Oracle database because they already know that this product is best for their business because it is not expensive compared to Oracle. 

Oracle does have different versions with different prices. The cheaper is called the Standard Edition. And the most expensive is the Enterprise Edition.

MySQL is comparable to the Oracle Standard Edition if we compare peer to peer. But the difference is that the Standard Edition doesn't have features like the Enterprise edition. But the high security and the high probability are not in the Standard Edition. But MySQL will have it. It will have all those kinds of features with a lower price. Because the Standard Edition is more expensive than MySQL.

Every kind of enterprise company has a core application on which their business depends. Mostly they will just choose the Oracle database. Why? Because of Oracle database's capability to handle the big workload for enterprise businesses. I think that will become their priority and MySQL will not be an option for them.

But someday I would like to see the enterprise companies changing their mindset. If you are talking about core applications related to the high workload in the future, they can choose MySQL as well. Maybe not now, because right now they still see MySQL as for small/medium business and not for the enterprise business. But I hope in the future MySQL can be seen as on the same level for their database.

That will mean that all enterprise companies can have two options when they are choosing a database solution for their core application; either Oracle database or MySQL.

I'm a reseller of MySQL. I've been selling this product for one or two years.

In terms of stability I think MySQL is categorized as a stable product. We have customers who are using MySQL as its database as an online application and it's like an online store. So it means that the work is quite heavy but we are using MySQL for it. 

In terms of scalability, because the application is online, MySQL grows when their business grows and expands with the system. They may need to add more servers, but when they add more servers it means MySQL also expands.

MySQL has that kind of capability - when the servers grow they have some kind of clustering method or clustering concept, which makes it scalable onto several servers. So it will follow the growth of the servers to cover the business.

I have been handling Oracle products for more than 10 years so I know about their kind of technical support characteristics.

For MySQL, when the customer has a problem they get their support from the Oracle portal. That means, the manual of support is online and the customer needs to register on the portal and if they have some issue or some problem using the product they need to create a ticket, and escalate or submit the ticket to the portal. Later on, they will get support from Oracle support which is worldwide.

They have their own SLA for giving support because they apply a severity level depending on how you categorize the error.

The highest severity is severity one. I think there are three or four levels. When the problem is not income to the business, you can categorize as a level three, it's a normal error. But if the error or the condition is impacting the business you can assume that is a severe one. So if you create a ticket and mark it as severe one then Oracle will directly contact Oracle support. They will contact you to help you to solve the problem within five minutes.

The initial setup is categorized as a simple and user-friendly installation. It is not complex.

I have experience installing Oracle, and if you just do the default install without too many customization, you can finish it in about one or two hours. For MySQL I think it is one hour to complete the installation.

In terms of license cost, I think the one that we are selling for MySQL is not a perpetual license like we are selling for the Oracle database.

The Oracle database license we are selling is on a perpetual basis. MySQL has that too, but for MySQL we are selling only the support.

That means that the subscription we are selling for one year consists of software support for MySQL.

That's the difference between Oracle and MySQL.

My message to our customers out there is that you want to get a good product. A good product in terms of the cost and an effective solution. But you also need some guarantee that this product will be supported by the principle.

Because there are so many cheaper products out there but they don't have principles to support the product. They rely on the community for the troubleshooting.

So I recommend to the customers to try this product. MySQL comes from open-source so it means it's a cost-effective solution. But the important thing is this product has its own principle that is supporting this product. It means you don't have to worry as long as you have a bit of a principle behind you to cover and support you. So you can use this product with less worry because you have a principle behind you. That is my message to the customers.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give MySQL an eight.