MySQL Reviews

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 it for my clients. Basically any website that uses WordPress uses MySQL, so we use that to manage and run our WordPress websites. Some we have on a cloud, some we have at hosted servers.

It is part of WordPress and some clients are using it for eCommerce, and others are just using it as part of the website to give information.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its ubiquity. MySQL is everywhere, so if I need to find a developer to do things to it that I don't know, it's very easy to find someone who has expertise in it.

In terms of what could be improved, there is not anything that I can think of offhand.

Everything related to automation or improvements are external tools that are brought into it, so it has nothing to do with the robustness of the system itself - it is the developers and implementations that touch it. Those can be improved, but MySQL itself is fine as is. 

I would just say that it could be a little bit simpler to use.

I've been using MySQL off and on for about seven years.

Different hosting systems have different iterations of it. Whenever possible, I try to use the latest version, but usually I'm using a model or two back. But I'm not using the original, not by any stretch.

Everything that works with MySQL is stable. If it's a bug, it's due to the developer who has miswritten a piece of code. The code itself is perfect. It's the application of people who attempt to make changes where the issues come in.

In terms of scalability, I have not done anything bigger than a couple hundred people a day on a site, so I really couldn't tell you about that.

Our clients are small businesses, almost all of them with less than 50 employees.

Previously, and I am talking almost 20 years ago, we would have used Microsoft Access, which is not a relational database and it's not iterative, so you can't have multiple people working on it, whereas MySQL is a system-based database, so multiple people can access it at the same time.

In terms of the initial setup, you definitely need to know what you're doing, but it's not illogical. The database rules and how they work are very clear and concise. To execute MySQL is fairly straightforward.

MySQL is open source so it's free.

My advice to anyone considering MySQL is to check the forums and do your homework.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give MySQL a 9. It would be a 10 if it was simpler to use, but as it is, it's about a 9.

It's been used as a primary relational database for most applications. It's scalable and could easily be maintained and could be migrated to any Cloud-based Database as a Service solutions which are compatible with MySQL.e.g. AWS RDS MySQL, AWS RDS Aurora, Google SQL. 

It has improved scalability, easy-maintenance. It is open-source and is easy to use. 

MySQL is open-source. There are a lot of open-source communities trying to come up with their own patches, and to come up with their own features, which help MySQL develop faster than traditional databases like Oracle, which is closed source.

The solution is also compatible with a lot of other databases, like Percona, and it's compatible with MariaDB. It's also compatible with a lot of other shared database solutions.

Since MySQL is mostly used as a relational database in a lot of organizations, a lot of other solutions are being merged with MySQL and it's a rather easy process.

Unlike a lot of closed source services, the new features are solely based on customer feedback. The customer feedback of open source is way larger than the closed source application.

The developers of MySQL, which are Oracle MySQL, Percona, and MariaDB, seem to not be focusing much on object-oriented replication. Basically, replication is based on a text level of replication. There is a text level replication in Oracle, that is so similar it can be implemented in MySQL, however, it needs to pull a lot of resources. They have altered their approach for replication. Still, more focus on object-oriented replication would be good. 

They should come up with a better solution than the NDB cluster for better scaling. If they could come up with a better solution for write scaling, apart from the NDB cluster, which is supported by all open source communities, that would be great. Although the NDB cluster, is an open-source tool, it's not widely supported as a solution.

The latest 8.0 version has come up with whole new features. 

I've been working on Relational Database MySQL throughout my career, i.e. for 14 years. This relational database MySQL is evolved from its MyISAM only engine to InnoDB and is now compatible with other database engines too. e.g. NDB, Galera. 

MySQL is reliable. If you are talking about it in terms of relational databases, MySQL is pretty stable. If you want to go ahead with a quite secure database like any PCI database or a customer-related database or even financial data, it's still feasible to migrate to MySQL. 

There are a lot of features provided by Oracle MySQL, Percona, and MariaDB. They all have their own replication cluster. Percona has XtraDB, MariaDB has GaleraDB, Oracle MySQL has its own cluster as well. MySQL replication is common in all three MySQL flavors. MySQL replication is an excellent read-scalable feature, which has also evolved a lot from its earliest versions to the latest 8.0 version.

The NDB cluster, which has been supported and developed by Oracle, and is based on MySQL, is different than all of the other MySQL replication cluster solutions. It's both read and write scalable. All other cluster features work well for read scaling. NDB cluster is the only cluster feature recorded by Oracle MySQL, which is write scalable as well as re-scalable.

The solution seems to have plenty of technical support due to the fact that there are three companies who are product owners, and therefore there are three companies who are supporting MySQL. They are: Oracle, Percona, and MariaDB. They're doing pretty well. 

There are a lot of companies also that support their customers. This is the good thing about any software which is open-source. A lot of open source communities come up with their own features and they try to patch up with the original source. 

The initial setup has evolved a lot. It's pretty straight forward whether you're using Mac, Windows, Linux, etc. You can set it up on almost every operating system. 

It's supported by the open-source community, and they have plenty of documentation online that users can reference for assistance. If you are working in almost any operating system and you have any questions related to the installation, you'll find the documentation you need.

I am not sure, what the licensing costs are for the solution. From my experience, there is no straightforward cost. You can get that cost from the Oracle website about the Oracle MySQL licensing costs, however, it's not a straightforward price quote for everyone.

If you are an existing customer, you can negotiate and you can get a better quote. The pricing on the website may be for new customers. That said, you can still negotiate. The same is true for Percona and MariaDB as well. 

We are using MySQL 5.6, 5.7, and MySQL 8.0. 

In terms of advice, I'd say when implementing MySQL, if a company has been using any previous relational database, like Oracle, Microsoft SQL or DB2, the easiest way to migrate from any database is from Oracle to MySQL. There'll be some challenges from Microsoft SQL, as well as from DB2 to MySQL. Any existing application which is working with the Oracle database as a backend database, DB2 database as a backend database, or Microsoft as the backend database, should still work fine with MySQL, with minimal code changes. 

MySQL is a product supported by a lot of applications and a lot of organizations. Almost every client and every API would be able to support MySQL. There would still need to be a lot of testing, however, I feel almost all of the applications which need a relational database for their database solution, could leverage out of MySQL. 

Our main use case for MySQL is for applications and seamless migration to the DR site. And the application in this case is an airport application.

I can meet the RPO in almost real-time. This changes the customer experience. That testing still needs to happen, but that is one of the advantages of MySQL. We have found MySQL to be a very sturdy and strong database. And I have run it in a solution where it's almost real-time, so it runs very efficiently.

MySQL's clustering features are very strong, and you can automate scripting, so that helps. We wrote a Terraform script and ran it. 

Rather than going in-depth about the technical features, which a technical person can directly tell, I would say that MySQL should be able to adapt to the next framework. The 5G framework means an unstructured framework. So if MySQL becomes smoother and more adaptable, it'll be easier. In terms of new features, automation is always the biggest demand from our customers.

I've been doing pre-sales and working with MySQL since 2007.

I would say that MySQL is definitely stable, but its scalability has yet to be tested. I cannot say right now.

We follow an agile strategy, so deployment is done in parallel. In comparison to other databases, I have always found MySQL to be the most efficiently managed. Of course, I don't discount Postgres, but MySQL deployment always has gone smoothly. I've never had an issue during migration, even on the granular level. UID numbers, which we commonly face in Microsoft SQL, have never been a problem with MySQL.

We use the implementation partners for OEM. 

We get the standard packages, but mostly MySQL is freeware. You pay for a license to get the upgrades. We pay for an enterprise license if that is required, but that's not in every case. It depends.

I would rate MySQL nine out of 10.

We are basically using it for our applications.

I like the JSON stuff.

Since we upgraded from 8.0.12 to 8.0.22, it has had some slowness-related issues. Some of the queries that were fast previously are quite slow now. I did some research, and I found many people complaining about it.

I've been working with this for two and a half years, and they have been using it for 10 to 15 years.

We are using a cluster now, but I don't administrate that. There are thousands of users.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

We use the solution for our applications, as a management system. We utilize it as an operator or relational database. 

I am totally satisfied with MySQL. I like its performance, ease of use, stability and scalability. 

The solution could have better integration and security features. 

I have been using MySQL for more than five years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. 

I have no experience with tech support. 

We did not use another solution prior to the current one. 

Installation is easy. It takes about 20 minutes.

One can do the installation on his own. 

Our team involved 15 people. 

There is no licensing fee. 

I believe there are 100 users making use of the solution in our organization.

I would recommend this solution to others. 

We primarily use the product for small applications.

The solution is great for small applications in particular.

The performance is good.

The solution originally was designed as an open-source product. It has a community edition that anyone can use for free.

The initial setup is simple and straightforward. 

I have doubts about its overall stability. It's something that they should look at.

As an open-source product, there isn't really any technical support available if you get into trouble or have issues.

There isn't much scalability potential in the product.

I've been using the solution for a very long time. It's been years at this point.

The stability could be better. It's not as stable as I would prefer it to be. 

It was originally designed as freeware, as an open-source project, and the community wrote the solution. However, they've made it worse over time.

That said, the performance is pretty good.

The solution is not that scalable. It's not something you should pick if you need something to expand significantly.

While I can't speak to how many people use the solution in our company, I can say that it is used by several departments and divisions.

The solution is open-source and managed by a community. Therefore, there is no technical support available to users. 

The initial setup is very easy and quite straightforward. It's not overly difficult or complex. 

That said, I was not a part of the original setup and therefore cannot speak to how long the deployment took my team.

We didn't need any assistance from integrators or consultants. The setup was handled in-house.

The solution is open-source and free to use. We have the community edition. We don't have to pay to use it right now.

Right now, Oracle has taken over the business of MySQL. Now, it's standard that you have to pay money for the license. That's why we are shifting all our databases, the small, small databases, from MySQL to Oracle. We do have extra data, so we do require a license.

Currently, we are using the previous version of the solution. I can't speak to the exact version number, however.

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten.

I wouldn't recommend it to other organizations at this time.