MySQL Reviews

The multiple engine replication is the most valuable feature. This neuralgic process for billing needs high availability and that is where we need this robust, but simple solution. If one server fails, we switch to the other transparently.

It facilitated fast processing of the millions of records for billing of the the call detail records in the Telecom company. The company needed to recover calls, in addition to immediately detecting frauds in the telephone calls so as to block the line and generate large losses. With the help of stored procedures, functions and triggers, we created an engine to recover most of the calls with a single transaction. Thanks to MySQL.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

I would rate the technical support as a five out of 10.

We were using PostgreSQL. The reason why we switched to this solution was that of the easy administration.

The setup was easy.

MySQL is very flexible, has excellent performance, and it's simple to use.

Once we needed to use a database to distribute a product for my company and we chose MySQL, it was easy to use and it is very small, but powerful.

Maybe the way to build clusters needs to be improved. They could also improve the installation process.

I been using MySQL for nearly seven years.

There were no stability issues.

There were some scalability issues.

I would give the technical support an eight out of 10 rating.

We did upgrade the version with improvements to the product.

The setup was complex in the cluster installation.

MySQL is one of the best database options. The Community version is great.

We used Oracle and SQL Server, but their prices and licensing were so expensive.

Using MySQL could be an excellent option for you.

The most valuable features are:

• MySQL Database Servers

• MySQL Connectors

• MySQL Workbench.

MySQL has improved our internal procedures by providing high performance, ease of use, and cost savings.

Security in the data files needs manipulation.

I have used this solution for five years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support is excellent.

The setup was really straightforward.

According to the specific business and technical requirements, you can choose your MySQL Edition that you wish by consulting the official site.

We looked at the Microsoft SQL Server.

It can benefit any business by a straightforward way of implementing and using it.

This product is valuable because it is used in production environments. Online backup can be implemented by activating a temporary storage similar to the Oracle's flash recovery area and introducing Percona innobackupex. This is possible from version 5.6.

It permits services such as data warehouse and retail.

The online backup needs to improve.

I have used this solution for 15 years.

We did encounter stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

Not applicable because we don't purchase commercial support.

We switched due to cost saving reasons.

The setup was of medium-level complexity due to memory parameters.

Compared to PostgreSQL, it has an online backup feature only with the extension of Percona innobackupex.

Speed and stability of the MySQL DB are the most valuable features since we use it as the data store for most of our web applications.

Before we used MySQL, we used to access the data used for the dynamic web pages directly from our enterprise data stores and that was a massive performance bottleneck. With MySQL, the data can be accessed much faster. This allowed us to create more complicated web systems, such as the corporate message system and a credit card paying system.

From where we are, most of the improvements are being handled. With the new improvements that were introduced in MySQL 5.7 and with the testing that we have done to this point, we are looking at updating our web development environment to make better use of the new features.

With the push from MySQL to implement database engines which can provide the same functionality as PostgreSQL and MongoDB, we are looking at application development that leverages this functionality on our current MySQL production database. Seeing that MySQL can provide noSQL document storage the same way MongoDB can and still have a SQL data source next to it creates the possibility of using the best features of both to achieve the desired application result without changing our current infrastructure drastically.

It must be noted that we are still in the process of experimentation to find the best ways of utilizing these data technologies in our current enterprise applications, but not having to move to other database providers to have the functionality means we can experiment without the need to change our base processes. So when I say that the improvements are being handled the MySQL development team have given us access to functionality which we started to look at about two years ago.

I have used this solution for around seven years with upgrades.

There were no stability issues.

We did experience a few scalability issues, but we decided to rather go for a bigger server than creating a cluster and that worked out very well.

The technical support is very good

The setup was very straightforward since the out-of-the-box MySQL's performance is already very good.

We had to do some tweaking over time, but nothing too major.

The enterprise version has a number of extra components that makes it worth the price, but if all you want is a stable DB for web applications, then stick to the open version.

We use enterprise because we use the PAM connector and the DB firewall, if you are looking at the pricing for implementing a separate data firewall, it is more than what you will pay for this solution.

There were not a lot of other options open to us.

Ensure you know what you want to use it for and make sure it is the right fit for the job.

Do not allow developers to tell you what your DB should look like, as that is the best way to performance problems. Use the MySQL Workbench and MySQL Monitor.

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.