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.
Currently, I'm doing a lot of source applications with Ruby on Rails, React, and mobile applications. PostgreSQL is my preferred database over MySQL. It's open-source and licenses are free, so it is excellent. The SQL queries are almost the same as MySQL.
Clustering is the number one feature. It is also open-source so it is free. It can also be clustered, to allow fault tolerance. MySQL has to be licensed, but PostgreSQL does all the same things. I have deployed both. You benefit from the way you use it.
It could be improved by using parallelization. We want distributed computing. Some databases handle huge volumes of data better, such as the NoSQL database, MongoDB which can handle 100 000, or a million people using the same data search. PostgreSQL is going to take longer to do this, but it is more structured, and unlike MongoDB data is less likely to be duplicated. Large volumes of data can be handled better in PostgreSQL if the queries are written well.
I have been using PostgreSQL for about 2 years. I used to use version 9, about two years ago but right now I'm using version 10 or 12. I know how to create database functions. I know how to create relationships between data like primary keys and foreign keys etc.
I think PostgreSQL is more stable than MySQL.
As an RDBMS, a relational database management system, it scales well.
I have mainly used the Stack Overflow site for support, which is not technical support in particular. I have never been in a situation whereby I'm stuck and I have to go and ask PostgreSQL support.
The difficulty of the initial setup depends on the application you are deploying the code to. It can be integrated with Docker to enable automation of this process. I put PostgreSQL in a Docker container and then I just collect it. It just works wherever I deploy it. It takes less than three minutes. I use a continuous integration process. The Docker orchestration engine such as Kubernetes or Docker Swarm can be used to integrate with it. I store the code in GitHub or GitLab and your code is always there. Depending on the technology you're using, some things change in your configuration.
I have deployed them to Oracle recently. I've also deployed it in the cloud. There's really nothing special about the cloud, as long as I use the PostgreSQL machine I can deploy it anywhere. I want to deploy it on the Google cloud platform, and Amazon Web Services as these are well known virtual machines.
When it comes to pros, I would put MySQL and PostgreSQL in the same class. let's say I'm trying to write to the database and then the power went off. It will still keep the data integral. I don't have duplicated data, and data integrity is intact. With NoSQL databases I have to duplicate queries in case something like this happens I don't know whether my data is going to be integral in cases like a failure situation. PostgreSQL has the rollback function which remains integral. I cannot build a search engine using PostgreSQL, because that would be a very expensive hit on resources. Alternatively, with the ElasticSearch utility, and the use of load balancing, it is very easy to use. Elasticsearch returns substantial results and works in the background. I cannot do that with MySQL or PostgreSQL databases as that's actually a very expensive use of resources.
My advice would be to use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL because of licensing issues. Another reason is that Oracle may remove MySQL soon or add substantial costs to using it It may even turn into something like MariaDB, and then you would need to know if MariaDB and MySQL work the same? PostgreSQL really works well. There are a lot of other databases around right now, but PostgreSQL is the most popular. It is not like a hammer and a nail situation whereby it is the only thing you have to use. If you need a relational database management system, go for PostgreSQL instead of MariaDB or MySQL, then use it side to side. Can also consider other engines out there, like other NoSQL engines, perhaps.
I would give it an 8 out of 10. PostgreSQL is not suitable for all types of applications, hence why I gave it an 8 instead of a 10.
The solution is an RDBMS and can be used to simplify customers' requirements for a back-end database. The main function of the solution is to store information from front-end users.
The most valuable feature of the solution, compared to other RDBMS solutions, such as Oracle MySQL or IBM DB2, it is more user-friendly and has backward compatibility. For example, if you have an application that requires an old version of SQL Server and you have the latest version of the license, you are able to install and use it in backward compatibility mode. They keep supporting the existing legacy application. Additionally, the solution is simple and if it is configured properly it performs very well.
I have used the solution for approximately six years.
I find the solution to be very stable.
The solution is scalable.
The technical support is only provided to the customers having a subscription-based license with a Software Assurance server. For other forms of licensing the solution will not provide support.
I have previously used other RDBMS solutions, such as Oracle MySQL, Maria DB, PostgreSQL, and IBM DB2.
When comparing PostgreSQL, Oracle MySQL, and Microsoft SQL, Microsoft SQL has an advantage over the other two server databases because it provides a graphical user interface by default.
The initial setup of the solution is very easy and the time it takes depends on the architecture required. If the deployment of a cluster is required then the setup may take up to three hours, whereas standard environment deployment needs half an hour.
The solution can be installed by our selves but the use of an integrator makes it much easier.
The solution requires authorization in either the form of perpetual licensing or subscription-based licenses for two years. If a perpetual license version is purchased then customers have it to the end of life, whereas a subscription-based called server with Software Assurance, has to be renewed every two years.
The areas that need improvement are with regards to the commercial aspect of the solution, the licensing cost could be reduced in order to help customers to adopt it.
I would recommend this solution. However, the customer has to make sure it fits their use case.
I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.
The primary use case of this solution is as part of our financial systems.
It is easy to set up on their engineered systems.
It needs to be more stable, as recently we have experienced some issues.
The support should be more customer-friendly.
The pricing should be reduced.
I have been using Oracle Database for a few years.
We are using the latest version.
It used to be stable and scalable, however, we have had recent stability problems on the Exadata platform.
We have the necessary number of people using the application.
We have Oracle support but we are not satisfied with it.
It needs to be responsive, and more customer-friendly.
We use different products for different requirements.
We are switching away from Oracle.
When it comes to storage, we are a large organization with many different databases. We haven't migrated between the databases, however, that is now starting to happen as we are moving off Oracle. We won't remove it completely, but we are moving away from it.
It depends on how it is being deployed. For example, if you have multiple designs and you are deploying it on their engineered systems then it's not complex. But if you are running it on a traditional hardware system then it is slightly complex.
I don't know how long it would take to deploy on the monitoring systems, but on the engineering systems, it would take two to three hours.
We did not use a consultant, vendor, or reseller to deploy this solution. We implemented the database ourselves. The engineering system is always done by Oracle, and we don't have a choice. Oracle always deploys the physical equipment.
We have a team of 12 to maintain this solution.
They are pricing themselves out of the market.
We will continue to use this solution in the future.
I wouldn't recommend Oracle Database to others who are planning to use it.
I would rate it a seven out of ten.
