MySQL Reviews

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. 

I used it for a small customer database company in England with 20 employees. They didn't have that much data, and we needed something easy to install and easy to run. This was my use case for it.

My main reason for using MySQL for this small customer database company and for some kinds of scientific projects was that I had to do the installation myself. I didn't have a database administration team behind me. Therefore, I was looking for something very easy to handle. MySQL is easy to install, connect, and do all such things.

Its scalability can be better. It is probably not as scalable as Oracle. 

I had some issues with connectors. I used it from a C++ program, and it required some work to make it run, but finally, it worked.

I have been using this solution for two or three years.

I used it for a small customer database company in England with 20 employees. There were only two people using it. It was really a small solution. For this purpose, it was perfect, but I'm not sure how it scales. It was just not an issue in this case because we had very little data. 

Their technical support is fine.

It is easy to install. It takes just a few hours.

I will probably keep on using this solution. If you have a limited amount of data you want to store in the database, and you don't want to spend a lot of time on administration, it is certainly fine. 

I would rate MySQL a ten out of ten. It was perfect for our use case. 

I have worked on migration projects between Power BI on Microsoft and SAP modules, which involve exchanging databases from Power BI on Microsoft to SAP modules. 

Additionally, I have been involved in integration projects as a MySQL developer using Oracle SQL databases.

MySQL has facilitated the migration projects to SAP modules from Microsoft Power BI, easing database exchange. The integration is smoother and more efficient, which has been beneficial for handling various projects.

The ML modules in MySQL are advantageous since they make data handling easy and quick at MNQM. I have a lot of experience with QA test sections on MySQL, and it aids in connecting with third-party programs effortlessly due to its adaptation capabilities.

MySQL has some unique exchange problems when it comes to migration projects. The product could improve in terms of security, though not necessarily when compared to Azure. It can be improved in areas related to database exchange during migration projects.

I have five years of experience with MySQL.

MySQL is stable and continuously improves concerning databases. It is advantageous for projects in this area.

Scalability in MySQL involves unique troubleshooting for every project that differs according to database exchanges. You can solve scalability issues easily if you possess strong SQL skills.

Technical support from Oracle for MySQL is very good. They are really good at providing support.

Positive

I have experience with Oracle SQL and have not used Microsoft SQL. MySQL and PostgreSQL are the tools I currently work with.

The initial setup for MySQL took about one and a half hours, and only one person was required for the installation.

Cost-saving is not a significant concern, but focusing on project details is crucial. The project details provide exchangeable areas that can lead to cost savings.

The pricing for MySQL is slightly expensive, especially in unique projects for sectors like automotive and pharmaceuticals. Despite this, it is preferable for special projects due to its unique offerings.

I have experience with Oracle SQL and PostgreSQL.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

MySQL is an Open Source RDBMS, which means you keep your costs low, as long as you don’t need to have support and/or you have your own MySQL expert. However, MySQL also offers the enterprise edition for users that would like support and more advanced features.

When it comes to features, MySQL offers all the features of a RDBMS system, including monitoring tools, backup and recovery, high availability and easy migration from other databases.

For any web project today you are going to need a database system. If you use any Content Management System, MySQL is most of the times the database of your choice.

MySQL is easy to use, most developers have experience using it and it is an Open Source, cost-effective solution.

Although MySQL should cover most of the needs of an average user, there are constrains that need improvement.

For example, MySQL doesn’t support check constraints. MySQL’s performance is not optimal on subqueries and can significantly increase the server load for database intensive applications.

Another issue is the ineffective table manipulation during multiple transactions which result in implicit Commits.

Finally, since MySQL is now part of Oracle, and Oracle already sells their own databases, changes and bug fixes have significantly slowed down for obvious reasons. Oracle cannot improve MySQL too much, since it will then compete with their commercial database systems.

We have been using MySQL either through custom projects or through CMS, for more than 15 years now.

We haven’t encountered any serious stability issues with MySQL.

However, as with all systems, you need to keep your database “tidy”, making sure to optimize it, clean it and avoid corrupt files.

For critical projects, it may be wise to have redundancy by having two servers synced all the time.

Most scalability issues with MySQL can be simply resolved by adding more memory, optimizing settings or moving to a better server.

Of course, if you are talking about 40-50TB of data, or critical applications, then you will probably need to move to a more commercial database, such as Oracle.

We haven’t used the enterprise edition of MySQL, since most of our projects do not require such support levels. Most issues are handled by our developers.

MySQL has been the only solution for all of our web projects.

Setting up MySQL is simple, however, optimizing it requires some experience which is also based on the demands of each customer.

When we started using MySQL, it was more or less the best Open Source RDBMS for web projects. Today, you have multiple options, such as PostgreSQL, SQLite and MariaDB, therefore the choice for a newcomer should be based on their project needs.

For us, MySQL is the choice for all of our projects. It is simply to use, supported by all content management systems and, of course, Open Source.

We haven’t had any major issues, and since we have now developed MySQL technical skills and custom libraries, there is no reason to move on with a different RDBMS, unless circumstances change.

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.

Used as a data store for RESTful web services and other web applications. Was deployed to store RSS feeds, and for 100 joomla instances. 

MySQL is widely supported. We were able to integrate it with several different projects using various different programming languages with no issues.

Worked with Java, Perl, PHP, C# and C code. 

MySQL’s strength is in its fast connection, query and insert performance. I’ve benchmarked MySQL against several NoSQL and SQL databases and found it to be faster for getting lots of data inserted quickly.

The weakest link is replication. MySQL’s replication is touchy and doesn’t support master-to-master setups.

MySQL’s replication was implemented by playing back SQL statements getting executed on the master database node. That means if a slave node gets behind, it has to catch up by running every SQL query that has executed on the master. When the slave gets too far out of date, it is unable to catch up because the replication log is lost. 

Master to master replication is used to allow writes to either node in the cluster (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE).  Since MySQL does not support this, you can only safely send SELECT queries to slave nodes.  If you run an insert, update or delete against the slave node, then it is out of sync with the master and may break if a later replication event comes from the master on the same table.

I’ve had an issue where an InnoDB database grew too big and got corrupted. I was unable to recover it because there was not enough space on the server either. Be sure to have enough space.

We did encounter some scalability issues as it has limited clustering support, it requires scaling up rather than out to some degree. Of course, you can have read replicas. It also has a fall-off on performance with very high workloads, but it takes awhile to get there.

MySQL has replaced Microsoft SQL Server in several cases. MySQL is easier to manage and much more cost-effective.

The security model is different than the other databases.

There are tuning and monitoring benefits for people who purchase MySQL rather than using the free version.

Looked at Microsoft SQL Server and PostgreSQL. 

The porting code to or from MySQL is not that complicated, but the date type/format and functions are the biggest hurdles. Handling booleans data type is less efficient than the BIT type in the SQL Server.

I started to use MySQL at some point when I had some issues that I couldn't get around. I normally use the tool in professional opportunities and when I require support from MySQL.

Cacti is a tool for monitoring devices on a network in graphical terms, for which it uses MySQL or MariaDB. I mostly deploy Cacti with MySQL or MariaDB. Somewhere down the line, I started to have some issues with the permissions in MySQL, including its areas like superuser privileges and similar stuff, which took me a while to figure out. I think the tool is fine for me now.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it helps me to get my work done. I am more interested in getting my work done than any feature it comes with since, as long as it gets my work done, it can actually help me achieve my objectives.

Nowadays, I use phpMyAdmin or MySQL WorkBench to manage MySQL. I would have been in a position to comment on what requires improvement if I had spoken about the tool three years ago. There are no improvements needed in the UI of the solution since many tools in the market help the user get the job done. MySQL WorkBench belongs to Oracle.

The performance, stability, and security are areas with shortcomings in MySQL, where improvements are required.

It would be a great improvement if the product could be made affordable enough for me to be able to access support from MYSQL, especially when I deal with mission-critical applications.

I have been using MySQL since 2014.

It is a very stable solution. I deployed the product six years ago, and it still works fine.

I won't be able to comment on the product's scalability since I haven't deployed it in a cluster environment.

Our company has over a thousand devices, including switches and a couple of other devices, which report to MySQL for management purposes. In general, MySQL is a very robust tool.

Somewhere down the line, I got introduced to MariaDB as well. Nowadays, I use MariaDB rather than MySQL most of the time.

The product's initial setup phase is easy since I use package management software. I mostly take care of the deployment phase with the help of Docker and other tools. If you decide to use the default deployment settings provided by MySQL, then it is a straightforward process to deploy it.

A lot of things have changed since I have deployed the solution. The solution is like a new product nowadays since you just need an application to deploy it presently. The other area where you need to take care of the solution is knowing how to secure it very well so that it becomes less vulnerable and prevents people from taking advantage of the solution.

Mostly, I go to the MySQL website to download the binaries, and I just deploy them on a Windows machine or another system, which is just a straightforward process. The product's installation phase is not much of a problem.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Earlier in my company, there were three people who used to take care of the deployment of the solution, but presently, I don't know who handles the deployment part.

In the past, the product was free for users, which ensured that users could experience a high return on investment from the use of the solution. I don't know the licensing models attached to the solution currently, but the return on investment is very high if you use it for a very limited amount of time.

MySQL was one of the tools I was introduced to from the very beginning when I was in school. Though I knew about Microsoft SQL Server, the lectures in my school did not introduce me to it since more focus was placed on MySQL. I find MySQL easier to use compared to Microsoft SQL Server.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it since it is a very good product that comes to my mind since it is always available. I don't know about the current licensing model of the product because it was an open-source tool earlier. I don't remember myself attempting to check what kind of license MySQL uses presently. In the past, Microsoft SQL Server used to cost a lot of money, which my company couldn't afford at that time.

I rate the overall system an eight out of ten.

My primary use case for MySQL is with my products or websites for clients, and it helps me maintain relations with the best.

The relations in the database, the dynamic workflow, and the ability to connect with all columns. It's useful for e-commerce.

There is room for improvement in terms of the stability of the solution. 

I have been using MySQL for three years. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. It does break down a little at times. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

The initial setup depends. For example, when working with e-commerce sites, it can be difficult to connect, and there may be failures. However, for other sites, it's easy.

Our organization is using MySQL by having it hosted through a hosting provider.

It is free. It is an open-source platform. 

Overall, I would rate MySQL a six out of ten. I recommend MySQL for small organizations and companies. For bigger organizations, one may need to consider other options.

You can also consider your project, budget, and organization while opting for MySQL. If it's a government or private project and what the product is.