Google Cloud SQL Reviews

I primarily use it for marketing data and marketing analytics.

This version of Cloud SQL becomes a part of our larger data warehouse, which is just a part that the SQL manages. I work on the visualization part. So I usually already have all my data coming into my dashboard and that's where I get my insights from. I don't dig it out from the SQL.

Its most valuable feature is that it's scalable. I can start off with a base of a lot of data and move as much as I want and it's the same as if asked to do a lot of infrastructure changes. I can start a release model experiment on a thousand people, and if that experiment is a success I can run it on a million people, and the whole analysis doesn't require any changes so it's scalable that way. It's much more cost-sensitive. It's not that costly for me to do it.

The only room for improvement here is that they need to connect to more existing data sources so that it becomes easier for a layman to get a more realistic understanding of what's happening. They don't put data outside of the cloud storage. If I can query and there is some way for me to ingest it with various query cells, that would be great.

Better connectivity with other marketing tools would be helpful. Right now it's limited in scope relative to the other connectors. So they should build more connectors, making it easier to connect the data.

There's no standalone application that I could just click and start shooting it.

I have been using Google Cloud SQL for the last two months.

In terms of stability, Google Cloud SQL is very stable. There are stability issues but they get fixed when I'm running it for the smaller experiments or the smallest subset. So whatever code outlier situations exist, we are able to understand that it's a smaller subset and when we scale it back it is not really an issue.

As I mentioned above in the features section, Google Cloud SQL's scalability is one of its best features.

We get very good support from Google. If we have any questions at all we talk to them and they work it out. So it's very good.

I previously used a different solution for our marketing database, but it was very limited in scope. Moving forward, Google Cloud SQL is the only data warehouse I will ever use.

The initial setup was straightforward. Our deployment took around two months.

We implemented it ourselves. We are a consultancy company, so I asked my engineer to build it for us.

The advice I would give before starting up is to have a small interactive introductory session with some domain experts because even though it looks quite similar to MySQL and all the other SQL solutions out there, Google Cloud SQL lets me do a lot more. And it offers a lot of perks if you know how exactly to handle the product. So even if it is with a small, introductory session of two hours or three hours long, where the experts tell me that, "Hey, this is the whole scope of this solution or the product but it will be scaled up," it will help the end-users a lot because the documentation itself is not that extensive.

We have 11 - 12 people working with it - all marketing people.

On a scale from 1 to 10, 1 is the lowest and 10 the highest, I'd give it an 8.

Our primary use case of this solution is to have it run as a database for an application and to store data. We are using the public deployment model of this solution. It runs really well, it's cheap, it's efficient, it's user-friendly,

The most valuable features are that it's easy to use, simple, and user-friendly. 

Better integration with other tools could improve this solution. For example, data analytics is very important, so that's why I go to BigQuery. They should make things more user-friendly, not technically on the use of SQL but when it comes to integrating it with other tools, it could be like dashboards or business intelligence. I believe Google is already working on that as well because they bought Looker about a month ago. I would like to see better integration with all the different tools on the platform.

It's very stable, we haven't had any issues at all. 

It does have good scalability. We haven't had any problems with that. 

We have ten users using this solution. Those users are clients who we provide services for. We do have plans to increase usage.

In terms of how many staff are required for the maintenance of this solution, in our team, we are eight. We do many things. Our focus now is on BigQuery, so data warehousing. 

I have previously worked with Microsoft and Amazon AWS. I switched because I just like Google. I think it's a great platform. 

The two main competitors are Microsoft and Amazon Web Services. Out of these three, Google is the smallest when it comes to cloud in general, but I am pretty happy with how things are moving. I've been using Google for many years now and the services and it runs very well. I also use G Suite, Google Docs, you name it. It all works really well. It's user-friendly, to the point, it's not complicated. Whereas with Microsoft and some Amazon services can get quite complicated.

Although, maybe some of their services are more expanded, and maybe you can do some more. From a technical point, they are more advanced sometimes. You could say that for Amazon. My experience is that if a tool is easy to use and you get the job done in the fastest way possible, that tool has a great chance of becoming the leader because it's about user-friendliness. With Google, you get the job done and that's why you use these companies. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It took around ten minutes. 

I deployed this solution myself. 

We have seen an ROI from this solution.

It's really cheap. It wouldn't be more than, I believe it's around 50 euro per month for running a cloud SQL. 

There aren't any additional costs that I'm aware of.

I used Microsoft and Amazon and I also looked at Oracle, which is also an extraordinary company. When it comes to databases Oracle is very good. The problem with Oracle is that they're a bit of a world of their own. Whereas with Google, they're pretty open-source and open-minded, so they embrace the multi-cloud and hybrid cloud. That's what makes Google attractive.

Go for this solution because it gets the job done and it's cheap. You're up and running fast. That's what you want.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. Not a perfect ten because nothing is perfect.

The primary use case for this solution is real-time communication software, chatting services and a few other different services running on the mobile apps. So, the primary requirement for Google SQL was taking off the management heading.

It's all built into the web browser, so any operating system will work. It's easy to manage. They help me take care of the replication data backups and software upgrades, updates and so on. They take care of everything.

I no longer need experts in database management. When I say database management, I don't mean SQL commands and which command is better or which query is better constructed. The database management in terms of memory, configuration, disc space, archiving, back-ups, replication problems, updates and so on. So, I no longer need someone or a team of people sitting around, taking care of my database infrastructure. I only have Google for that.

In my opinion the most vulnerable problem with Google SQL is each SQL node is provided with a public IP address. They provide you the option or ability to customize your access control list, but at the end of the day, it's a public IP address.

Quite honestly my usage so far did not test the limits of scalability. I cannot really comment on that one.

I have not used technical support. 

When we were using the Rackspace, we only used Rackspace virtual machines, for our virtual machine requirements, as well as our own SQL requirements. So, we had virtual machines, hosting SQL databases. And, it didn't really work out in our favor.

It was very straightforward. Just a couple of clicks, and we were done.

The pricing is very much an important factor as to why we use this solution.

When considering other options, we considered AWS, Google Cloud, Ocean and Rackspace UK.

I need to make sure that my data is stored securely, transported securely and accessed securely. And the second thing is the number of options I have. Google Cloud SQL gives us more options. 

My suggestion to anyone thinking about this solution is to jump into it head-first!

• Automated backups
• Read replicas
• Integration with other GCP services

Reduced management overhead on the DB side; scripted env-ts (setup and tear down of the infrastructure within GCP).

• Accessibility over internal network, rather than by public IP only
• MySQL clustering (rather than replication or failover only)

Not really, as long as GCP infrastructure is up.

For write operations – yes, as there is no MySQL clustering mode.

Hosted MySQL DB, maintained by DBA; reason for switch: overall move to the cloud of other GCP components.

Very straightforward, just a simple page to configure DB capacity and some additional attributes.

Licensing is not applicable; pricing is reasonable. Slightly more expensive than corresponding Google Compute Engine instance.

Most benefit would be for organizations which are moving other services to Google Cloud.

We work with the solution for various databases because it's easier to use, integrate with, maintain, and simplify backup.

The valuable feature of Google Cloud SQL is its high availability option, allowing for the selection of two backups and two databases. This ensures minimal downtime, adhering to SLAs that guarantee the database will not be down for over a few seconds.

The customer support should be improved.

I have been using the solution for the past three years.

The product is stable.

The support team responds quickly. However, it takes a long time to fix the issue or to help you with the solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It is not expensive, especially considering the significant reduction in database management time.

I recommend to experience the value of the solution.

We use Cloud SQL primarily as a database service and implement it in various systems, such as web systems.

The product's user interface could be more user-friendly to improve the overall user experience. In some situations, on-premises solutions offer more flexibility, so further investigation into these areas would be beneficial.

I have been working with Google Cloud SQL for about four or five years.

The stability is good overall, but some updates can affect service stability.

The product is scalable. It is more suitable for enterprise companies with specific needs and restrictions.

The customer service and support are good, but the service could be improved for enterprise users who require very short response times.

Neutral

The initial setup process is generally not very complex, although some exceptions can complicate it.

The platform integration with other Google products provides a connected solution. While I recommend Google Cloud SQL, the product choice depends on the specific use case. 

I would rate Google Cloud SQL as an eight.