MySQL Reviews

I've used MySQL in the past for a variety of tasks. 

I once used MySQL when I created a PostgreSQL database for club management tasks. This included handling registrations, events, and mailing notifications for payments and event details. It served as a source service provider.

The response time for support could be faster. 

MySQL's performance requires attention. For optimal performance, one should review and sometimes revise the code, particularly when using server-side scripting. To optimize performance, it's crucial to pay attention to your code. Sometimes, you may need to review your code to ensure it's efficient and doesn't unnecessarily access the database multiple times.

The performance issues I encountered were not due to MySQL itself but were related to my coding approach.

I have been using MySQL for ten years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

For my use case, it is okay. Basically, it's just me for development. Previously, all clients or members of the club accessed it. When there was an event, maybe 30 to 40 people would try to access the system simultaneously.

I'm using SiteGround for hosting the website and its servers. I've chosen a package with more than enough CPU and memory to avoid trouble.

I've used technical support for several times. Most of the time, it was quite okay with quick responses. Once, I had performance issues. It took some time to convince them, but they guided me on improving performance by changing some database functions in MySQL. It was a longer process, but it was eventually resolved.

Positive

The initial setup was easy. I work in an agile way, which means coding and deploying quickly. We had a few internal users but many external users accessing the website, though not the back office.

The back office was developed over years. It's not just about having an idea and executing it; it's more about testing and adapting the process, unlike the waterfall method, where you end up with something that may not be immediately usable.

As the main user, our deployment process wasn't as strict as in a big company. I conducted tests, had a testing process with use cases to review, and then deployed. It was less rigid than in larger companies, where there are separate testing and development environments.

I  have seen value and impact from using MySQL

I don't pay for a license. 

With my previous employer, we used Oracle.

Don't just use MySQL on its own. Always use it with other software around it. MySQL is very stable, but pay attention to the software you use with it, whether you develop everything from scratch or use open-source systems like CMS.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would recommend using the solution. 

My primary use case for MySQL is with my products or websites for clients, and it helps me maintain relations with the best.

The relations in the database, the dynamic workflow, and the ability to connect with all columns. It's useful for e-commerce.

There is room for improvement in terms of the stability of the solution. 

I have been using MySQL for three years. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. It does break down a little at times. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

The initial setup depends. For example, when working with e-commerce sites, it can be difficult to connect, and there may be failures. However, for other sites, it's easy.

Our organization is using MySQL by having it hosted through a hosting provider.

It is free. It is an open-source platform. 

Overall, I would rate MySQL a six out of ten. I recommend MySQL for small organizations and companies. For bigger organizations, one may need to consider other options.

You can also consider your project, budget, and organization while opting for MySQL. If it's a government or private project and what the product is. 

Mostly, we're using it as a database behind a machine learning application.

For starters, it's free, which is always nice, and it's also pretty straightforward to use. It's a nice conventional database. We don't need the sort of flexibility that you get with most SQL databases and stuff like that, so we are happy with a good old-fashioned relational database. It's totally good for that.

It works. It's reliable. We haven't done any configuration management for probably about two years, but as far as I remember, that was pretty straightforward as well. It's doing what it needs to do as far as we're concerned.

The workbench could be improved. In particular, error messages can be improved, which are horrific and completely unhelpful. I'd like to see improved parsing of errors. When you write SQL and it crashes, it usually is something completely irrelevant and not helpful. I've started to use GPT 3.5 for finding out how to do things. I got to do something a bit different, and that I found to be very useful. If there was some way to tie it into one of the new AI tools, that would probably be a good idea. There were a couple of things that I've found difficult to do in the past, and I remember they were fiddly. I set them into ChatGPT, which is GPT 3.5, and it gave first-class answers.

I find it clunky. It just doesn't feel very modern. It feels as if you have to go through multiple steps to get to places, and it's not clear, but operationally, I find it fine.

I've been using this solution for about five years.

It's reliable. I never lost any data, which you anyways shouldn't. I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of stability because we never had the slightest problem. We are not in a challenging environment, but I haven't had any problems.

We've had absolutely no limitations. However, we haven't got enormous data. It's not very vast, so scalability hasn't been an issue. At our level, it's not even a question. It's absolutely perfect. I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of scalability, which I describe as very good

I've never contacted them, but technical support within the environment itself isn't good. I'd rate it a three out of ten, but now if I can use my own technical support with GPT 3.5, it comes up to about an eight out of ten. It's a kind of hybrid support.

We weren't using a similar solution previously. We would prototype from things like Excel or straight-off .TXT files. I had some experience and so did my business partner, and we just decided this looked like the right answer.

That was pretty straightforward as I remember. It was a while ago now, but I don't remember any difficulties at all. I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of the ease of setup. 

It's free.

We did look at MongoDB, but it wasn't what we needed, so we decided we go with something a little more conventionally established, and MySQL absolutely fitted the bill. We didn't need anything else. We got some colleagues who used Oracle, but it's expensive and quite difficult to use. 

If you don't have any unusual requirements or absolutely vast databases, it's ideal. We certainly have no problems at all. It just works.

Overall, I'd rate it a nine out of ten. Nothing is perfect, but it's as good as we could have asked for.

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.

We use MySQL to manage business intelligence reports by linking them with Oracle database and Power BI. 

I like MySQL's feature that helps to automate things. 

The solution is expensive. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

I would rate MySQL's stability a ten out of ten. 

My company has two users for the solution. 

We have not contacted support until now. We have an onboarding manual. 

The tool's installation is not complex but you need to have experience to set it up. You need to download the solution and pay for it. The installation can be done within an hour. 

You need to pay upgrade costs every year. 

I would rate MySQL a nine out of ten. 

The primary use case for MySQL is to develop web applications, proof of concept projects with data collection, data manipulation, and data reporting on both Windows and Linux platforms. 

We also use MySQL to store the data that we receive from different projects and build data models. We can also develop reports out of it.

MySQL is used for small application use only and not used for enterprise-level business applications.

MSQL is free open-source software. This is the most valuable aspect for any company as it helps to reduce the cost.

MySQL is easy to use and, with basic knowledge of SQL, users can easily build SQL Statements. It helps to reduce project cost for development projects. It also supports a large number of embedded applications.

The backup and recovery features are easy to use without any complexity. Users who don’t have much knowledge of databases can easily use these features.

MySQL offers password encryption and offers a good data security layer to protect data.

MySQL platform independence helps the development and user community.

MySQL is a relational database and it is easy to install, handle day-to-day activities, and manage backups. It is compatible with a lot of other shared database solutions.

MySQL Workbench is the graphical user interface tool and it helps with development, data modeling, data migration, and day-to-day administration.

MySQL has cross-platform support for multiple operating systems. The backups on a Linux machine can be restored on a Windows machine, and vice versa.

MySQL supports multiple window displays and it is useful for developers and users who don’t have much database knowledge.

Improvements are required in character set support, scalability, and big data sets.

There is a lack of advanced features such as SQLServer, PostgreSQL, etc. I would like to see minimum reporting services and analytics features in the next release.

MySQL doesn't have many tools to monitor performance and fix issues easily.

The graphical user interface needs to be improved. It would be nice to have drag and drop on tables to create relationships between them. Other relational databases have these basic features. It helps during development to have these on hand.

It needs improvement in high availability and scalability features. 

I've used the solution for more than ten years.

MySQL is good for small to medium sizes. Also, it has built-in security features. 

The scalability is good.

The support may be limited for users who are not on cloud and needs improvement.

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution.

MySQL is easy to setup and offers HA and scalability features. 

We implemented the solution in-house.

Its free open source availability provides good ROI. MySQL commercial version cost is higher than other open source databases. 

MySQL is free open-source software. This is the most valuable aspect for any company. 

We looked at an SQL Server and Mongo DB.

It supports wide range of languages and cross-platform support

We're on a software development team. We develop applications.

We're currently running version 5.7 of MySQL, and we are going to be upgrading to version 8 this year.

MySQL server currently is in a co-location center. We've got a hosting provider that takes care of that for us. We are looking at moving it into AWS, but that won't happen this year. We do have a smaller MySQL RDS instance in AWS right now, but it is pretty minimal. 

It is free, which is probably its most valuable feature. It is a pretty full-featured relational database. It really does everything we need it to do. 

The availability of tools could be improved in the MySQL open-source platform. They can provide more analytical tools. I haven't had any particularly difficult issues to troubleshoot on MySQL, but in the past, on Microsoft SQL Server, I had to troubleshoot some difficult issues, and better tools were in place to see what was going on in real-time on the server. So, that's the bit that is lacking on the MySQL open-source platform.

I have been using MySQL for seven years in my current company, and I have probably used it for another two or three years in a previous company.

It is very stable.

I haven't dealt with them.

We're using the open-source version right now, which is free. I do see some value in some of the more enterprise functions. We're using the open-source version right now, and I was interested in the MySQL Enterprise version really for the tools that they provide, but we decided not to make the purchase.

There are certain things that it doesn't do as well as SQL Server. There are certain things that you can do to swamp the server, such as it is just not very responsive to more complicated joins and things like that. Unfortunately, you have to try to learn what those things are, but there are certain things like correlated sub-queries and more complicated approaches that it doesn't support, and you can hang the server in doing that. So, even though it has standardized the SQL queries and other things, there are some things that it doesn't perform particularly well, such as more complicated joined scenarios. We join several tables at a time, but we tend to do that on well-known indices, primary keys, and things like that, but if you're doing something more sophisticated than that, it becomes more challenging. These things that I've mentioned are written up by people, and once you learn those things, you develop techniques to work around them. You take different approaches to solve the problem for those things. You have to do that anyway as a developer. You don't just write code and throw it out there on a production server. You certainly need a totally separate test environment and all that.

I would rate MySQL an eight out of 10.

We use the tool in projects with customer records in the database. There will be a front-end application to search and find specific data from the tool. In another project, there are product listings, and the front end fetches data from the tool and shows it in a gallery or list view on the web page or mobile application.

We used MySQL in a project for a nonprofit museum. They have a lot of donors. They have a large repository of customers who give donations. They categorize the customers based on the money they give, such as steward level, platinum level, and diamond level. The client may send out an invite for an event for a certain group of customers, such as the patrons who donate the most. MySQL helped us in that project.

The optimized process is valuable. I have seen websites that take ages to load and show the data. Many web applications with lakhs and lakhs of data will take forever to show specific results. The database performance is optimal for the application we developed. The speed is very good. There were no delays in fetching data from the back end and showing it on the front end.

At times, the autoscaling does not happen when there is a surge in load. We had to depend on manual scaling. It led to website crashes in the past.

We have been using the solution for projects running for the past five years.

Scalability is one area in which we are very cost-sensitive. We always closely monitor the charges to increase the server scale. It will help us use more space in the DB if there is an economical way for us to pick up larger servers. We have more than six lakh end users.

Most of our projects are on the cloud. A very small number are on the client's premises.

We are continuing to use the tool because it's been cost-effective. It's producing revenue for us. It's a beneficial solution.

The tool is open source. We choose open-source software mostly. We integrate a very limited number of licensed software.

I have not seen any incident with a security violation or data breach. I have not contacted the technical support team. The infrastructure team contacts the technical support team regarding server-related issues. There is a LAMP stack. The Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP combination seems to be working well for enterprises' modern web applications.

Overall, the integration works well. However, initially, we worked with a third-party integration team to fix the APIs, query, and response code. Initially, some technical work will be needed. Once it is done, the integration turns seamless.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.