MySQL Reviews

Below are a few instances where MySQL is utilized. Typically, I have worked on RPA projects. To preserve or update data from the database, I must create a database and data tables, which can be used again in the future or by other processes. Additionally, the data can be shared. I need to store and manage the data for reporting and management purposes.

The tasks I perform, mostly involve sorting, patching, and maintaining data, as well as creating stored procedures.

MySQL's most significant attribute is its capability to create, modify, and maintain databases. This is crucial and advantageous in procedures, such as SOAR. Therefore, all SQL functions are beneficial to any backend developer or developer who requires data storage.

The solution is easy to use and the user interface has worked well in my usage.

Improvements to MySQL depend on the specific use case. For example, in my scenario, I frequently need to maintain and store data, which can then be utilized to generate reports. On the other hand, others may suggest incorporating a feature that allows for easier visualization of the data, such as what is available in Power BI or other similar tools.

I have been using MySQL for approximately five years.

I rate the stability of MySQL an eight out of ten.

We have four to five people using this solution.

I rate the scalability of MySQL an eight out of ten.

I rate the support of MySQL a nine out of ten.

The initial setup of MySQL is simple. Anyone can do it.

I rate the initial setup of MySQL a nine out of ten.

I can implement the solution by reading the documentation.

We have been looking into another solution called Microsoft Dataverse but it's not accessible to all the processes for our use cases. Additionally, we are evaluating Amazon AWS. We are finding solutions to fit our client's needs.

If an individual is not currently utilizing MySQL, I would advise them to investigate its efficacy in managing and modifying data. Its numerous features can streamline these tasks significantly. For those interested in starting with MySQL, it provides an all-in-one solution for their needs, allowing them to complete numerous tasks with ease. Moreover, I would suggest using available tools to learn how to use MySQL effectively.

I rate MySQL a ten out of ten.

MySQL is user-friendly, making it easy to maintain and modify data. It offers robust security features that enable restricted access based on user permissions. Additionally, it's efficient in loading data and performs faster than many other databases. Users can expect speedy results without encountering significant delays.

Our primary use case for this solution is a home database of payments.

The feature I found most valuable is activity performance.

This solution needs to be improved when it comes to working with desktop applications on the developer side.

I have about 15 years of experience with MySQL.

My impression of the stability of this solution is that it is quite good.

My impression of the scalability of this solution is that it is standard. However, scalability depends on enterprise size and legacy product compatibility.

My impression is that their technical support is good.

My impression is that the initial setup is pretty standard. Some parts of it can be difficult. We had a tough time with the administration and database.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

We use MySQL for storing data on the web server. It is a competitor of Apache. The solution can also be used for analytics, warehousing, and Big Data.

The tool is open-source and there is no cost involved in its use.

I would like to see some improvements in the solution’s integration aspects.

I have been using MySQL for ten years.

We have optimized and stabilized the solution over a period of eight to six months.

There are around 60 plus users for the tool in our company.

There is a 25 member team involved in the tool’s maintenance and deployment.

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. The solution’s users have the liberty of custom management. We can implement the solution in Azure, which is Microsoft’s advanced version.

Our organization uses MySQL as an ERP database for transactional and financial systems.

We are completely comfortable with the database’s performance and it is a mature product. My organization was looking for an open-source database for our smaller customers like the community edition. For bigger customers, we can scale into commercial and supported editions.

I would like to improve the solution’s pricing for licenses.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is a very stable product. We have had no reason to be concerned about its stability.

The solution is scalable and it is one of the reasons why we chose the tool. Oracle has the information documented. We have a solution that we sell to the end users. There are about 50-200 users of that solution who may be using it simultaneously. We also have dozens of clients like that.

Our solution’s end-user customers contact us for technical support. We haven’t felt the need to contact Oracle’s customer support.

The technical preparation for our company to migrate from the previous database was about three months. We did our homework and shortlisted three potential solutions. We invested a month’s time to ensure that our solution could operationally run on MySQL. We also built migration capabilities to facilitate migration and rolled out upgrades to our customers. We never had any engineering issues during the implementation process.

We did the deployment in-house. Our company had the in-house skills to do it.

I would rate the solution’s pricing a six out of ten. The solution is not cheap but it’s a fair value. The pricing depends on the use cases of our customers. Some of our customers use the community edition which is license free and a good fit for their use cases. However, we encourage our bigger customers to sign up because of the scalability issues. The paid versions get direct technical support from Oracle.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. Our company is a service provider that has designed and built a solution. We sell it to other third parties. We are comfortable with MySQL. The solution being owned by Oracle and its brand positioning influenced a big part of our decision. The solution is very consistent with its peer group and we accept the solution’s range of functionalities.

We are happy with our choice. We evaluated over ten solutions before choosing MySQL. I am sure that we would be making the same decision if we were to do it all over again.

We primarily use the solution for NDB and CG clusters.

The solution has made it easier for us to support our clients in India for a government technology project relating to CG clusters.

The IO segregation in CGE is valuable.

The auto-tuning and NDB cluster has some limitations regarding foreign keys. For example, when creating a partition with shared architecture data, the foreign keys do not work properly. Additionally, whenever we are working with this solution, as our projects are carried out globally, the size of the database is getting used fast. In case of replication and data access with two multiple sites or nodes to become a cluster, you need two separate data storage for accessing the same data from the two nodes. Hence, this consumes a lot of storage space.

We have been using the solution for five years and we are currently using version 8.0.31.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, but I can configure this product with two nodes in case of a rack, but it is impossible in any of the databases. Therefore, I rate it a seven out of ten.

We do not have experience with customer service and support.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took less than twenty minutes. I rate it a nine out of ten.

One person is required for deployment.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good but auto-tuning and the NDB cluster can be improved.

I'm using it to create a small database for a project that I'm working on.

The easy access to the data and the ability to sort the data with multiple methods are very valuable features.

It's quite easy to grasp and is really well documented, which are huge plus points.

Sometimes, I get lost in the toggles and buttons, and a better visual design would be nice. The layout is not user-friendly or efficient.

I would like to be able to sort the data easily without having to do a request to get the table out of the database into the web page. At present, I can't do it directly inside MySQL; I have to do a request and print out my request into a web page.

The stability is really good. I haven't had any issues with it.

The scalability is good.

The initial setup is easy.

I learned to use it in class, and the setup was quite fast because the teacher really helped us to gain access and take the first few steps. The setup took a few hours at most.

I installed it myself.

I use a free version at present.

Plan how the data will be constructed. I had to delete an entire database and start over because I didn't organize it properly. That was a huge block.

I would rate MySQL at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We're using MySQL for data warehousing and logging.

Even for the best database, we always want the database to perform much better, so we wish MySQL would be much better, in terms of performance. When they release a new version, they mostly concentrate on scalability and performance.

I've been using MySQL for seven years.

The stability of MySQL is good.

MySQL is a fully scalable product.

The initial setup of MySQL was easy and straightforward. You can complete the initial setup for this product within a few hours.

It was the technical team who did the setup for MySQL. We had two or three engineers who took care of the deployment and maintenance of this product.

MySQL is very cheap. In fact, it could be free. They also have a yearly licensing option. I don't remember paying for additional costs, aside from the standard licensing fee.

I evaluated Oracle Database.

I'm using the Enterprise version of MySQL.

MySQL is a good database. We are using it, and we'll continue to use it.

I've never contacted the technical support team for MySQL. I have no complaints.

I can recommend MySQL to others who plan to start implementing it.

We don't ask for new features on a database. When we take a database, we take it because of fixed features, e.g. its current features. It's not an application. It's a database. We are fine with whatever features MySQL offers now. We never really thought about whether we want more features on this product.

I'm rating MySQL an eight out of ten.

We use the product for database management, as a database engine.

We use it for different projects, mainly when we have lots of data and the customer can't afford to pay the license of SQL Server, which is not a cheap one.

That's the main reason you use MySQL or Postgres or other databases. It's less expensive. 

The solution is stable.

The scalability is very good.

It's a mature solution that's been around for decades.

It is very easy to set up the product.

The support in MySQL is horrible.

It isn't as reliable as an SQL Server.

I don't see MySQL being improved at all, like in the last 10 years. It has been at the same level for a long time.

Its stability is quite good. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable, however, sometimes you might have issues. You need to have the knowledge to make sure that you can scale. That said, there are a lot of used MySQL implementations all around the world, which shows that it's a proven product. It has been there for more than 20 years or so.

The support is not ideal. It could be better. It runs under Oracle, and Oracle support is not the best company when it comes to supporting - especially since MySQL used to be a free, open-source solution, and remains free. Oracle doesn't have this approach in its DNA. It's an enterprise and they're not into open-source ways of working. That's why sometimes we move from MySQL to Postgres, which is similar yet has the support in the community.

I've also used Postgre and SQL Server.

This product is not as solid as SQL Server. It's not like it's a lesser quality thing, however, it's not as reliable as SQL Server. The engine is a whole different engine. SQL Server is a full-featured database engine, and MySQL is based on what we call a file-based database. It's like flat files as a database engine, so it's an underdog, if you can call it that, when it comes to database engines. That said, it works fine.

The initial setup is not that complex. It's simple and straightforward for the most part.

The solution is open-source. We don't pay for it.

There are options to get professional support from Oracle and, for that, the pricing really comes up, therefore, it's not competitive anymore. For that reason, it might be even wiser to get Oracle Database than get MySQL and pay for the premium support.

We are just end-users. However, we are happy to work with them.

With Microsoft, we are a customer, partner, and vendor. We aren't partners with Oracle. 

I would rate the solution at a six out of ten.

They just need to assign a great team to MySQL, basically, and Oracle should just leave them alone to improve the product as the product hasn't been improved in the last 10 years. Since Oracle acquired it, it has been in decline. They need to do a lot, not in terms of features. In terms of the mindset.

I would recommend Postgres which is similar to MySQL, over this product. Even the clients are coming to us with such requests. They will flat-out tell us: "we hear that MySQL is having issues and we don't want to deal with Oracle and all that kind of stuff, so let's use Postgres." It's easy to migrate over. It's almost seamless, which makes it a very attractive option.