Google Cloud SQL Reviews

The solution is easy to use. I am impressed with the tool's features and functionality. 

I would like to see better availability of the product in different regions. It should also improve the security with encryption. 

I have been using the product for six years. 

I would rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. My company has more than 2000 users for the solution. 

The tech team's response is delayed. Also, it's difficult to get a resource. 

Neutral

I have used AWS and Azure before. 

The solution's deployment is easy but integrating it with some applications is a bit difficult. The tool's deployment took more than two hours to complete. 

I myself did the deployment. 

You need to pay extra costs for backup and replication. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. You will need around 10 admins to maintain the tool. 

Our primary use case is for lift and shift migrations. For example, from on-prem MySQL to the cloud.

It supports different databases, like Postgres and MySQL. It allows you even to migrate data from one DB to another one, for example, from MySQL to Postgres, et cetera.

The solution is stable and reliable. 

It's a scalable product.

The solution has been issue-free.

We haven't had any issues and have not come across missing features. 

The monitoring part could be better. People who are not very, very technical and who may be more on the business side, find that it can be a little difficult to understand the metrics. That probably can be simplified.

We've only used the solution for four or five months. It hasn't been that long just yet. It's been much less than a year. 

It's quite stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. 

We can easily scale the product as needed. It's not a problem.

We have eight to ten users at this time. 

We don't have any plans to scale at this time, however, it may be something we consider in the future. 

We've had no issues so far. We have not required technical support.

We previously used Postgres. Managing the DBs was a little tedious, so we migrated them to Cloud SQL.

There is no setup process per se. It's on the cloud and therefore there is nothing to upload or download.

We do have a technical team involved in the product, however, we don't have to worry about deployment or maintenance tasks. 

We have not needed any outside assistance. 

The is no license required. 

As a cloud product, we're always on the latest version of the solution. it self-updates. 

I'd recommend the solution. It is well suited for this lift and shift migration, especially if you are accessing everything within your VM. They have a Cloud SQL proxy and those things. It's easier to maintain and you don't really have to worry about the operation side of it.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case involves deploying the platform within a private VPC environment, where we heavily rely on its managed services for product deployment and ongoing data management tasks.

The product’s automatic scaling feature is particularly advantageous for accommodating large volumes of data. Additionally, the query insights provide valuable analytics for optimizing performance and identifying potential issues.

They could improve documentation and dashboard stability for efficient user experience and database management.

We have been using Google Cloud SQL for approximately two years.

I would rate the product a seven in terms of stability, with occasional minor issues that are promptly addressed by Google's technical support.

The platform is highly scalable. It offers robust features. Our clients primarily consist of enterprise businesses, as it caters to their complex infrastructure and security needs. 

I rate the scalability an eight.

The technical support team offers responsive assistance, although there is room for improvement in certain areas.

Neutral

The setup process was straightforward, involving simple configuration steps within the Google Cloud environment.

Our deployments are typically within a private VPC environment, and the duration depends on the scale and architecture of the project, ranging from a few days to weeks for larger implementations.

The return on investment is significant for us, as Google Cloud SQL is integral to our product offerings and data management infrastructure.

While the platform’s pricing may be higher, it aligns with industry standards, considering the quality of service and features provided.

Google Cloud SQL enhances our AI-driven projects by providing features like query optimization and scalability for efficiently processing large datasets. Additionally, recent updates, such as the optimization feature for Germany, further contribute to improving performance and supporting our AI initiatives.

Despite minor areas for improvement, it offers robust features and scalability that make it a valuable asset for businesses seeking efficient data management solutions.

Overall, I rate it an eight.

We are focusing on data pipeline creation and data migration. It involves continuous streaming of data from one place to Google Cloud to be analyzed immediately.

Knowledge graphs and data integration is very important for distribution for our business. To create a seamless data integration, the title integration of these databases with the data integration platforms is essential. This is what we would like to have in a future release.

We would also like to have artificial intelligence capabilities. We are exploring the leverage of Machine Learning Algorithms for workload prediction and AI capabilities would assist in this regard.

We have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution and offers good performance. 

As this product is cloud based, it is scalable. 

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is not that complex. 

From a financial perspective, Google Cloud SQL is on the cheaper side.

We did compare it with other solutions from Amazon and Microsoft. We received a special incentive from Google. That's why we went for Google Cloud SQL. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution due to the fact that our server instance, the data center instance, is in GCP.

The speed is very good. 

It's useful in terms of the simplicity of doing backups. 

You can have redundant databases for reports, for posts, for example. 

It's SQL. SQL is so easy if you know something about databases. It's easy to learn. 

I like the cloud aspect.

The pricing of the solution seems reasonable. 

The solution is stable. 

Google seems to be working on a data lake solution, and we are happy with that.

Other clouds, like Azure, have some specific products, and Google doesn't have something like that. For example, if you work in Google, you can use Dialogflow to make a chatbot. However, the Azure methodology or system is more powerful for those chatbots. 

In the case of Google, they need to work on a more easy interface for users.

Azure is easier to learn. I don't know why. I like the Azure system, even though I'm a user of Google. I don't like it when on the screen you can't follow the steps clearly. The user interface just isn't as intuitive. When it comes to Google Cloud, in order to do something, you need to read more maybe. It requires more research and learning. 

I've been using the solution for two to three years.

The product is stable, however, maybe they need support for more databases. I remember some problems with the PostgreSQL integration with BigQuery or something like that. I don't remember now, however, from what I recall, we needed more support for other databases in GCP SQL.

We have maybe 200 people using the solution right now in our organization.

We also use PostgreSQL in GCP and BigQuery too for extract information from Jira.

The licensing is charged yearly, however, I don't manage the cost of the cloud in my company. I only work with Atlassian products. We are users of GCP for our instance. When I work with data in Google Cloud, our data people say the cost is not a problem. I can make a dump of databases daily and store extractions in buckets, for example, every day, full data, all days. And it's not a problem, cost-wise.

We are a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for managing workflows, workflow data, and state management. We'll use it for tenant metadata information and keeping it. 

We have some BI use cases as well. We are in the automation industry, so, in general, whatever is required for automation, we keep all that information. 

We are using standard SQLs features only, so we don't use any very specific feature assets.

One feature we've found pretty interesting was their support, which is multi-region support. They have good multi-region failure support, and we can just set up there and read replicas directly and we can fall back. We are quite pleased with the results.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It's stable. 

The solution can scale. 

The purging of the data could be better. We don't have a good mechanism to deal with the old data, especially when the data grows. We see latency issues, so we were forced to introduce an in-memory store. Otherwise, the solution is fine.

The enterprise edition is quite expensive. 

I've used the solution for a few months. 

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

Currently, our DevOps team is using the product, and we have 20 to 30 people using it. We have plans to increase usage. 

While it is scalable, I don't yet have practical experience with the process. 

The solution is very easy to set up. It's not overly complex. 

The deployment is very fast. It was only a few minutes.

I'd rate the solution three and a half out of five in terms of ease of setup.

I'd rate it higher if there was general serverless support or good best practices by way of documentation for setting everything up. We are using the enterprise model. Having best practices and serverless support would make it a bit better.

Right now, we don't need much maintenance as we're still in the beginning stages and don't have much production workload.

We were able to handle the setup ourselves. The documentation was good enough to follow so that the setup was easy.

The pricing is interesting. For the enterprise edition, it was almost three times the cost of the standard edition. There should be some more clarity on that. It was not very clear why it's so much more or what the differences are. It requires better documentation. 

We're a customer and end-user.

We moved quite recently in production. In terms of the development run, we were on AWS. Now, some of the workloads we are moving to GCP even though we have been an Amazon shop for a long time. 

We are working on the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I am using it for database purposes. I am learning it to prepare for my certification. I have done a few big uploads, which I have removed later on.

I found its storage and security to be the most valuable. It was a good experience.

It is also very stable and scalable, and its support is perfect.

I am yet to explore a lot of features that are present in this solution. However, it would be good if more documentation is available for this solution. This would help us in preparing for the certification exam and understand it better. Currently, we don't have much documentation. We do the labs for 20 or 25 minutes, but we can't capture and download anything.

I have started to use it very recently. It has been three-plus months.

Based on my experience so far, it has been very stable.

It is very scalable. We can add and remove the nodes and other things. We can also add servers and other patches as per the requirement.

We have a team of seven people who are using it currently. We are preparing for our certifications. Very soon, we will get some projects in our company, and at that time, we will use it officially.

They are perfect. I would rate them a 100 out of 100. Whenever I have faced an issue, I got full support from their side, irrespective of whether it was a small or big issue. They're really good people, and they helped me a lot. Their support is wonderful.

It was easy to set up.

I would recommend this solution. It has a lot of good features. It is easily scalable.

I would rate Google Cloud SQL a ten out of ten.

GCP hosts our entire infrastructure, both internally used systems, and externally-facing ones. Back to back this means that Google Cloud SQL is used for all SQL related requirements by our systems.

The main benefit to our organization is the fact that we no longer need DB admins that take care of the physical servers, backups etc... All this is managed by GCP.

In terms of most valuable features - its ease of management and the ability to oversee the statistics of your SQL, and obviously its availability all the time.

In my humble opinion, nothing can be improved. It's a good solution as it is.

What could be refined however is the ability to have more than just one secondary/replication site. At the moment you can have a primary DB and a replica one, but having the option to add a third or fourth replication site would be fantastic.

We've been using it for around 2 years.

Google Cloud SQL is very stable.

It is highly scalable. You can quickly add the disc space and you can quickly add different discs and nodes.

Everyone in our company is using Google. Emails are Google. Everyone's using Google. All infrastructure for our operation is on Google. The more business we have the higher the usage.

Google's technical support is good, but they tend to never reopen a case and to send us snippets from the publicly available documentation. It's not as helpful as you would expect, not just for Google Cloud SQL but for all of Google Cloud products.

The initial setup was quite simple. It took maybe 10, 20 minutes

On a scale of 10, I'd give it a 10. 

I would recommend everyone to check all of Google's Cloud portfolio and give it a shot.