MySQL Reviews

It is Open Source and easy to access.

My company does not use MySQL. However, it is often used at universities and is suitable for beginners. It is used for many projects.

From the perspective of the company, you can count on reliable Microsoft SQL or Oracle. If MySQL gets solid, it will be a good solution.

I have used this solution for around two to three years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

There does not seem to be any technical support for MySQL.

I have used MS SQL and Oracle. However, now I have no money and am using MySQL.

Encoding problems were always complicated, but nothing else.

If you have money, it would be better to use Oracle.

I thought about other Open Sources, but I chose MySQL, which I have already used.

MySQL is a good choice for startups and beginners.

ACID attributes are the most valuable feature, as data reliability is a top concern.

The backend of the production traffic happens at this level.

The dynamic scalability, clustering, dynamic replicas safeguard against failures, ease of setup and use all need to be improved.

• MySQL was originally meant for a single server; now with the 5.7 version, they have introduced the multi-master model but it is on the user to ensure that there is no conflict of data. Also, to add/remove a server from the cluster requires downtime and MySQL won't scale load on its own as it has scaled up/down (the load distribution has to be done on a separate layer).
• MySQL does not understand the clustered model, it is not aware of others in the cluster and won't act as a player in the cluster.
• Data corruption or two different updates to the same record are not sorted in the replicas and needs manual intervention.
• The cluster setup is complex and so is its maintenance.
• It is not equipped to take advantage of the Cloud (AWS, Azure etc) and their pricing models (go as you use).

I have used this solution for two years.

We have seen the corruption of data in replication when used with filters and also, with the growing data response time dwindles.

A lot of manual effort is needed to scale the solution; a lot of room for improvement is there.

The setup was of mid-level complexity.

It is a GPL license, only the support is priced but as there is a good community so buying support is optional.

I wasn't involved as this predates me at the organization, but today if this re-happens MySQL won't be the best choice.

Do your research and make sure for your use case that MySQL is the best choice, before making any commitments.

• SQL Merge
• Replication
• Views
• Stored Procedures
• Triggers
• Cursors

This is just like the enterprise grade Oracle DB. MySQL now supports replication (master-master or master-slave) of our DB to support our company's multiple geo-locations and PoPs.

It supports the original Oracle SQL operations such as Merge, as well as the creation of Views to your tables. This brings additional convenience to our organization.

The main benefit for us is that it's totally free, unless you need to pay for support.

I would like to see additional side management tools and IDEs.

I used this current version for one year. I used previous versions for over ten years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

We didn't need any technical support. I would guess that Oracle support is top-level.

We did not use a solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was straightforward, user-friendly, and easy. In most cases, if you use the Linux-based versions, it comes as a standard Linux package. You can get it installed by using AptGet, Aptitude, or Yum.

Just pay for any license if you need some enterprise support for your project or any additional support tools that Oracle ships with the enterprise version. During the development stage of your project, you can just use the free community edition.

We evaluated MSSQL, Oracle DB, Informix, and MariaDB.

Go with the Linux version. It is more stable and manages the system resources better.

It is open source and AWS provides a managed solution.

Amazon has come up with Aurora, a MySQL hybrid that has helped us get up to speed without actually thinking about MySQL underlying optimizations.

Catching up with proprietary technologies like Oracle and PostgreSQL is the challenge right now.

We have used this solution for over four years.

There have been no stability issues yet.

We code for horizontal scaling and hence the only thing that becomes important is the number of connections. The data can be easily replicated in real time on Amazon replicas themselves. We have a dynamic solution to read data from replicas and not from a master instance. That is how we scale.

I would give technical support a rating of 10/10.

We did not use a different solution before.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Keeping something similar to AWS, and as easy as Amazon, will be the best thing for any small business like mine.

I did evaluate other solutions, but MySQL stood out because of its ease of use. Perhaps my prior experience has made me be biased towards MySQL.

Until you have expertise in data migrations and what you are doing with data, MySQL can be really easy and dangerous at the same time. MySQL doesn't give you a warning about data truncation if data types don't fully match. Be really careful on that front.

SQL capability, functions and ease of optimization.

Software and web development.

15 years.

No issues.

No issues.

Manageable.

Used open source and never needed customer service.

The product is quite mature.

NA

Straightforward.

In-house.

Good.

The open source product is good. If you want advanced features go for the enterprise edition.

The EER diagram is the most important feature for me as the EER diagram can show the inner picture of the database, such as the relationship between the tables very easily. We can also add, modify or delete EER diagrams very easily.

The user friendly interface which is easy to interact with such as creating backups, tables, views, and the EER model.

It has lot of options to interact with. Sometimes it is hard to find the appropriate options quickly. They need to add descriptions somewhere as to where a user can go to find the proper menu easily when required. Another problem is that since all the databases can be seen and operated together, it’s possible to make mistakes such as dropping the wrong database.

I have used this product for two years.

There was no issue with deployment

There were no issues with stability

There was no issue with scalability

The level of customer service is good. I understand sometimes they need to transfer the service to a knowledgeable person, so we need to have patience and explain the same problem several times.

The level of technical services is good. I understand the product is technical, so sometimes the reported problem requires more investigation.

I used phpMyAdmin. It is also a graphical interface but you have to buy the product while MySQL Workbench is free.

The initial setup is very straightforward. I didn’t face any problem at all.

I did the installation.

This product is good as it is a graphical interface. It's easy to do all MySQL database administration very easily. You just need to play around to be more familiar with it. The MySQL Workbench interface is well prepared to design a database including EER diagram, create table, and view very easily. The EER diagram allows the user to completely understand the database design, which is very important and useful for the people who are involved with the database. It’s easy to understand the inner picture of the database from the EER model.

This product’s most valuable feature to me is active-active (multi-master) cluster support for MySQL.

We have been using the multi-master solution from the Percona cluster. It seems to work as expected.

We use it as an embedded component of a solution we sell. It has provided a low-cost, high-availability solution without complex active/standby management using Linux HA.

It should provide detailed debugging with transaction IDs at the application level to understand deadlocks, especially under bursty workloads.

It should also provide partitioned tables and a clustered index, like Oracle, to take advantage of inherent parallelisms in the application domain.

It does not scale well when there are concurrent requests. Making changes to binlog and transaction log settings improves scalability at the cost of reliability.

It has decent support.

This product’s active-active cluster feature was the reason for choosing it.

One of the reasons PostgreSQL was not considered – a decision taken before I joined the company - was its lack of mature multi-master cluster support. It also lacked other popular ports (e.g. MariaDB, Percona, etc. in MySQL).

Ensure that it meets your scaling needs, and has features for handling parallelism in the application.

MySQL database is the database on which we run JD Edwards. You could run it on Unix or you could run it on Oracle or something else. Our choice was to run it on MySQL because of the availability of resources in our area. There are more MySQL database resources available around Houston than there would be those that are familiar with, say, Oracle Database.

The availability of resources for MySQL has been the biggest benefit for our organization.

I'd like to see Oracle provide more certification for it.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's pretty rock solid and we've had no issues with instability.

We're able to scale without issues.

I cannot tell you when the last time was that I had to call about support for MySQL. It's really rock solid.

Choose your database based upon your ability to be able to hire people and support the product, like supporting JD Edwards with a MySQL database. Not everyone can work one database with JD Edwards as well as they can another one. So just make sure you've got the compatibility and skill-set.