MySQL Reviews

We use it for financial transactions such as money remittance.

It has a community version. When I have to create a new database, I have no problems with licenses.

It can have better monitoring. In addition, the enterprise manager should be able to cater to more than one virtual machine. Currently, you need one license per server. It seems a bit too much to get one license for one enterprise manager. I hope the enterprise manager for MySQL can accommodate more virtual machines for MySQL.

I have been using this solution for a decade.

It is stable.

We have categorized the amount of data we have as big data, although we haven't really been using it much.

We have 2,000 people in our company, and we have over 100 virtual machines installed with MySQL.

Because we are using the community version, we haven't had the chance to contact the technical support of MySQL.

It is easy for us. After a few trials or installing it a few times, we have benchmarked and created best practices for installing it.

It has a community version.

If you are not into command-line usage, I don't think MySQL is for you. I found MySQL easier to use by using the command line rather than by using the workbench. The workbench is comparatively slow, especially when exporting.

I would rate MySQL a seven out of ten.

I have been working for 25 to 30 years in this domain, and during this time, I have used various products such as MySQL, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL. Currently, in my product, I am using PostgreSQL, and in some projects, I am using MySQL. We are using the latest version of this solution.

We do projects for various government departments. We have used this solution for the transport department for vehicle registration, driving license, and all such things. We have also used it for port projects, depots, educational counseling projects, school databases, higher education, and health registry. As an organization, we have a lot of use cases of this solution.

It is very easy to install and has all basic database features.

We require more ease of use, scalability, and high availability. These are some of the critical features that we use and look for in a product. It should be easier to manage clusters. Scalability is very important for us because our projects and concurrency requirements are quite big. We also require high availability of the server, application, and other things.

It should also have more performance-based features or enhancements from the performance point of view. When we divide a database, it should be able to handle the queries very fast.

Whenever required, we also take support, but our people are quite experienced. They are able to manage it most of the time.

Its installation is quite easy.

We have our own people who do the deployment. We have various teams for various projects, and the size of the deployment team depends on the project. We have people who basically look after the DB activities, installation, and consolidation.

There is a licensing cost because we are going for a proprietary product. There are some other versions for which there is no licensing cost.

I would recommend this solution depending on the project. If a project requires the kind of features that are available in this solution, I would recommend this solution.

I would rate MySQL an eight out of ten.

We only support the backend and only carry it as a database. You can do what you want on the database to create the schema and to manage the rest of the organization.

Errors that come from MySQL need to be more clear. In Oracle, for example, you have the aura and you have numbers, you can easily find the error. MySQL should follow the same as in Oracle.

Stability needs improvement and the backup needs to be enhanced.

We have been using MySQL for years.

We are using the latest version. Normally we do upgrades and we follow the upgrade path.

It could be more stable.

We have 15 customers, but I am not sure of the number of users we have.

I have not dealt with technical support.

It was easy to install. It only took ten minutes.

We have a huge database team as we are supporting many regions.

We implemented this solution ourselves.

We plan to continue using this product. It's good, and I can recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It is an ideal database to use online learning environments and SMEs. It works well with  Moodle, the open-source learning solution, and is the defacto standard for that product as Moodle is written in PHP which generally goes hand-in-hand with MySQL. As it is an open-source and free solution it is an economical method of storing important companies or small business data. At the same time, it offers a rich set of functions comparable to other large-scale enterprise solutions such as SQL Server and Oracle. 

MySQL is easy to configure, use, and implement. It is free, and cost-effective, with a powerful plethora of tools. It has improved my organization for my clients using Moodle and MySQL databases, as problems are usually easier to fix quickly, and the database resources can be optimized, easily. Even though it is not as sophisticated as SQL Server and Oracle solutions, it is the database of choice for most Moodle implementations. It has a history of reliability, which is always useful in a business environment.

The Cross-platform support for MySQL is great, as you don't need to worry about which platform or operating system you need to install the platform. This allows for interoperability.

Like other databases, it has a rich set of functions, such as stored procedures and its own procedural language, which is akin to Oracle SQL. It also has trigger and cursor commands you would expect with a good database language.

Views are updateable, which is useful when you need to amend a specific view of data for different circumstances.

It has it's own Data Definition Language (DDL), and provides an Information Schema, to view what is "under the bonnet" of your database.

MySQL tutorials and guides could be improved. Often they are too complex for someone with no database experience to understand. 

It is not an easy database to learn for the novice, and very often users need to take a course, employ the use of an online tutor, or IT professional to assist. Also, it is known that it is often difficult to locate guides for specific functions for developers.

It might be good to have some way of creating web services easier, rather than having to write a User Defined Function (UDF) in PHP.

I have been using MySQL for about 10 years.

MySQL has a reputation for stability, and that is one of the reasons it is so popular. Because it is easily available, just works, and can be integrated reasonably easily into other software, it is often the default platform of choice. 

It has been around for years, and chances are it will be around for the next 10 years or so, as new versions continue to evolve.

MySQL is scalable for SMEs and works on a number of different operating systems.

I have not had many issues with MySQL in the past, so I rarely use the support service.

I have used various databases in the past, but for my current business needs, MySQL is ideal.

It was a simple setup, as it was included in the Moodle installation process for implementing learning sites.

ROI is not applicable, as MySQL is open source and is free, so you could say it is only the investment of implementing the database in your environment.

Pricing depends on the size of your business. For an individual to SME sized business the MySQL solution should be adequate for your needs. Setup costs are minimal.

Yes, but for Moodle Learning sites, SQL Server is more complex, and is not multi-platform, Oracle is not recommended for Moodle, but the nearest to MySQL is ProstgreSQL. MySQL is reliable and easy to use. 

You do need to have technical knowledge of databases in general, but MySQL is not too difficult to learn if used alongside PHPMyAdmin, but there are other tools you could consider, such as MySQL Workbench.

The primary use case is as a reporting solution, data collection, data manipulation, and similar tasks. We install MySQL on Linux and Windows machines for testing our enterprise application.

We are a solution provider and this product is part of our offering to our clients.

MySQL hasn't really affected our organization, specifically because we primarily use it in a consulting model.

All of the databases basically have the same set of features.

What I've been most pleased with is the cost point, performance, and ease of use.

It is very easy to configure, it's easy to deploy, and it's cross-platform capabilities are quite nice.

The analytics features are in need of improvement. They aren't as far along as the capabilities that you have in terms of analytics for SQL Server and Oracle.

I have been using MySQL for about five years.

I've had no problems with stability and its recovery processing, error processing, and things along those lines have been fine.  We always use Java applications and the JDBC drivers work fine.

I haven't had any issues at all with its reporting or its transaction processing, or anything else. 

For our use-cases, the scalability is fine. We haven't seen any issues and we're processing probably hundreds of millions of rows each day. We're not into the billions or tens of billions, so we're probably a medium-to-low use case.

Most of our instances are single-instance databases, so I haven't had to deal with its clustering capabilities or distributed database feature set.

Our clients vary in size, although we generally operate as a small system inside a major organization.

I have never had to utilize technical support. There was never an issue that I had to call in.

I use a lot of databases including MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, and PostgreSQL. 

The performance of SQL Server and Oracle is better than MySQL. The two alternatives have other features, as well.

The initial set up very straightforward. MySQL is easy to deploy and very easy to configure. We can literally bring up instances in minutes.

This product has a good price point.

We had been on SQL Server and Oracle, and a subset of our customers wanted us to switch and use MySQL. We explored what that transition would take and then implemented it.

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing MySQL is to start by carefully evaluating their use cases. One of the things that we found is that MySQL didn't necessarily have all of the flexibility for JSON and XML processing at the time. I know that they've improved it, although it's not quite the same as what you see specifically in Oracle. So, the customer has to evaluate that. For straight-on basic transaction processing, it's worked out just as well with few issues from SQL Server to MySQL or from Oracle to MySQL.

For my use, I'm fine with what they have. I'll be interested in what they'll provide in analytics, as well as JSON and XML processing if that's even on their roadmap. For right now, it's really not an impact on my use case.

If I were rating SQL Server or Oracle then I would rate either one a nine out of ten. The only difference is that they do perform better than MySQL, although they don't perform so much better than it's relevant.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

MYSQL is our main database. We use it for every project.

I use it for storage procedures, SQL administration, and database administration.

We also use it for the development of reports, and projects that are deployed for our customers. It is also used to develop applications.

The majority of companies use it for their development projects.

It's free. I'm in a big organization, with more than 100,000 employees. If you have to buy a database management system for every project, it would be very expensive. 

Considering the cost-free option, you can use it for POCs,(proof of concept projects), and you can deploy it for customers to reduce project costs. The principal reason is that it is cheap.

Mysql is free : it's an open source project, so you can use it with no cost.

Mysql is well documented, and has a big community.

MySQL adheres to the current SQL standard, although with significant restrictions and a large number of extensions. Through the configuration setting sql-mode you can make the MySQL server behave for the most part compatibly with others like IBM DB/2 and Oracle.

There are a number of convenient user interfaces for administering a MySQL server.

MySQL has supported the storing and processing of two-dimensional geographical data. Thus MySQL is well suited for geographic information systems applications.

MySQL supports the ODBC interface.

For client programming you can use, among others, the languages C#, C, C++, Java, Perl, PHP and Python.

I would like to see a feature added to be able to handle high availability, which would allow us to scale the database or the system on many platforms.

Scalability has to be improved, as you have only one instance of the application, or two, or more instances at max that are connected on one instance of MySQL.

In the next release, I would like to see the scalability features improved to allow you to configure it and reduce the complexity with the configuration, making it easier for the end-user to scale. Make it as simple as it can be.

Add the possibility to define custom data types 

Add OLAP and backup capabilities

I have been using MySQL for more than five years.

It is stable, and in fact, it's more stable than PostgreSQL. Also, recovery is faster.

Scalability is difficult. You can scale it horizontally, but once you have many instances, it is difficult.

You can improve the server, resources that are available, and the processor is good but if you want to scale it on many instances than it is a bit complex.

We use it for customers. We have 10 instances of MySQL independently, on the project we are currently working with.

It's an open-source solution. There is documentation available on the internet, that provides enough to resolve issues quickly.

If you are a technician with practice, there is no issue, it's easy to handle. The documentation is available on the internet. You have everything you need quickly if you are autonomous.

It's easy, you just download it, install it and click next until it's complete.

It's an open-source database management system that can be used free of charge.

I am not using the user interface because I'm a developer. Generally, I just try to find how to use the command-line interface to access what I want for the system.

Oracle is still the best, but it's too expensive.

Before purchasing this solution, know the needs of your environment and be sure that you don't have to scale it. If you want to scale it you will require more knowledge on the product and you will need more support for it.

If you have a little project with a thousand users connected to the instances, it will be able to be scaled. But if you are looking to be able to handle large volumes this is not a good solution for your needs.

If am comparing MySQL with other free solutions then I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I am a senior manager of the infrastructure team and MySQL is one of the products that I work with. We use it in an e-commerce portal. The database is light and everything works smoothly.

The performance is great.

This is a lightweight product that is not demanding on the resources, which is what I think gives it the edge.

We faced some details in clustering, although this may have been because we did not have enough knowledge about MySQL clustering. In general, an easier implementation for clustering would be an improvement.

The product is a little bit complex and it is difficult to find sufficient documentation.

We have been using MySQL for approximately six months.

We have not had any problems with stability.

MySQL is easy to scale.

We have dealt with Oracle support regarding other products such as Oracle Database and Oracle WebLogic. I believe that it will be of the same standard, although I'm not sure.

I am not a technical person but my understanding is that they are competent.

My complaint about them is that when we have a problem, we have to explain the same thing many different times to different engineers. Every time we engage with a new engineer, we have to start all over again. This is a nightmare that we chased three months ago.

In addition to MySQL, we use Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server.

Oracle is an enterprise-level product but it is very straightforward to install and it has sufficient documentation and guides, which we did not easily find for MySQL.

Implementing clustering depends on a few different layers or different components. The clustering layer handles requests from the applications, and it is all a bit more complex than Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle.

The design, review, and deployment took approximately one week.

At the moment, because of the issue that we are having with the clustering, I may not recommend MySQL. It would first need to have the clustering problem fixed and then have a sufficient deployment guide. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.