If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering MySQL, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
I would rate it a seven out of 10.
I believe there are 100 users making use of the solution in our organization. I would recommend this solution to others.
I do not know the number of users who are using the solution in my organization. I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. I rate MySQL as a seven out of ten.
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.
I would recommend this solution to others. I rate MySQL an eight out of ten.
It's a good product for new startups. I would rate MySQL a seven out of ten.
I would recommend this product if it suits your needs. I rate this solution an eight out of 10.
For one level of data, you can use MySQL. However, for large amounts of data, you will have to find other databases. Overall, it's a good solution. I would rate MySQL a six out of ten.
I will probably keep on using this solution. If you have a limited amount of data you want to store in the database, and you don't want to spend a lot of time on administration, it is certainly fine. I would rate MySQL a ten out of ten. It was perfect for our use case.
We are just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with MySQL. I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. I would rate it at a seven out of ten overall.
For anyone who wants to learn SQL, MySQL is free on Linux, Windows, or Mac Operating Systems. MySQL can be deployed anywhere on the cloud or on a PC. I would rate MySQL an eight out of ten.
I would rate MySQL a nine out of ten.
My advice for anybody who is implementing MySQL is to ask around because there are many different ways that you can create a database now. Relational databases are no longer the best way to organize your data. It really depends on what it is that you're doing. For example, you may not need a relational database, but instead just a file structure. So, look at all of your options and speak with the experts to see what kind of database is needed before assuming that you need an RDBMS. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
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 would tell potential users that people in production have to be trained to use MySQL. They should take some courses, and get certificated. This will show them how to use the principal tools and provide some context about how MySQL works. On a scale from one to ten, I would give MySQL an eight.
This is a good product and I recommend it to others. We use it as a data store and from that perspective, we get everything we need. We don't have any complaints about features such as analytics, reports, or dashboards. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.
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 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.
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.
I would recommend this solution. I would rate MySQL a nine out of ten. I find it almost perfect.
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.
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.
If you want just a database for data storage, I would recommend MySQL. If you want something that has everything in it, such as reporting services and analytics, SQL Server might be better. Cost-wise, MySQL is almost pricing itself out. I would rate MySQL an eight out of ten for ease of use, especially for someone who has never used it and implemented it. It was pretty straightforward to implement it. It gives you what you need. It surely provides the basics such as data storage, setting up the tables, etc.
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 would recommend this product if someone is new to the IT world. I would rate MySQL an eight out of ten.
MySQL is a product that I can strongly recommend. However, it is important for you to have the in-house knowledge to support it. Some level of in-house expertise is necessary, otherwise, you will have to rely only on external opinions. In my opinion, that's not good. Sometimes they have good intentions but don't understand the reality. I cannot give MySQL a perfect rating because we don't use all of the features. That said, I can tell you that I am totally satisfied with it. It's a very stable product and it's something that is not difficult to deal with. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
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.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
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, they will still work fine with MySQL. 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 still will need be a lot of testing, however, I don't think there would be any application that wouldn't be able to support MySQL due to the fact that it's widely supported. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
I would rate MySQL a seven out of ten. To make it a perfect ten, they should improve the UI. It's got quite a narrow range, and there's a lot more obvious to the database side than what I deal with. The UI is not quite as sharp I would say as the Microsoft solution. In some cases, I find that there are better shortcuts available in Microsoft solutions. If I was choosing, I would probably lean towards Microsoft. That may be just a purely personal preference. My use of MySQL has primarily been from a data integration point of view, a data architecture point of view, and reviewing the database itself, and the data structure, data types. In my role, I don't define data and I don't build the database, I'm purely on the interrogation and the analytics side. I probably would find the Microsoft solution slightly better. But MySQL does absolutely provide what I require from that point of view. So I would recommend it, yes.
My experience has been open-source. Oracle should start putting in some of the enterprise features in the standard version. There are some key features that should be part of the standard. Things like replication should be part of the standard version as opposed to it being in the enterprise version. I would rate them an eight out of ten.
The biggest lesson I would tell others is regarding the backups. Once you start doing it yourself, backing up becomes a thing. When we sign up the clients, we'll give them a set amount of backups daily and we always give them a little verbiage about how much data can be lost if the thing goes down. Or for example, if you get hit somewhere, what is the last backup you did? How much are you willing to lose? Backups can become quite complicated, and that's something that you have to manage yourself. We have to come up with clever solutions to do runs within our Dockerized environments in production, which you usually don't get from the community. So we have to do it ourselves. That became a thing quickly once we started going. But that was years ago. We resolved these issues on the way and we are still making them better over time - how we back up the data, the business, the compliance, where did the issue live, who should have access to that? All that stuff. So backups are usually the thing that people don't think about. And that can bite you in the ass kind of quickly. On a scale of one to ten, I'd probably give MySQL a seven. There's definitely room for improvement here in terms of tools that come with the product, the way we deploy it, and the way we back it up. In essence, it's a good beginner base. It's just, the tooling around the database needs a little bit more work. You just need to be fair because it is a good database. It's also an open-source database. You know you can get commercial products that Percona for a commercial version of MySQL or Aurora database MySQL. So if you go with that, then you would probably give a much higher score because you really don't see it at all. It's just close your eyes and click a button and it's there. You don't have to touch it at all. For us, since we deal with it every day and try to compete with the companies, the small DevOps team tries to be as efficient as they can, and sometimes you have to build too many things around the solution. The commercial products only have that because they put 20 to 30 people on JSON and they can give it to you faster. That's what Google can do because they're good at the tooling around the database. In the current requests of the work, MySQL Workbench is the default tool to interact with the database. Again, MySQL Workbench is an open-source tool that it gets directly from Oracle. It's okay. It's not the greatest. It gets the job done. It's not a finesse tool. It just gets the job done. If you hide it behind a main service and you don't see it, it's great. You're good to go. People talk about Amazon RDS and how great it is. But that's a managed product. If you peel the layers and look at the SQL in there, they put a lot of work around that. It's fully scalable. The money used and the way they restructured that SQL database to actually give you that performance took a lot of work for the AWS people. So they're not going to share that IP with you. And they're definitely not going to release it because other people can pick it up, like Google. Then Google has Cloud SQL, as well. So they also have a MySQL version in there and they don't show you how the backup is, or how they actually manage it or scale it. You don't get that information. So that's the trade-off between managed and non-managed or self-hosting. It's always that kind of battle, that fight. It depends on the money, depends on the client. If it's for a healthcare issue or one of the hospitals, you just have to decide what they want, what's the best for them and how they're going to be protected. So there are many variables that come into play. It depends on your use case. In general, it’s a good database, I have no problem with it.
We are IT services provider, and provide this solution to our customers. It's typically installed on a dedicated server. When we are working with it, we are doing SQL queries, and on top of that, we are using MySQL to do some reporting as well. It does what we want it to do and our clients are also happy with the results they get. It's a fine solution. I'd advise those considering working with the solution to be patient. We don't have any partnership MySQL. We are mostly a Microsoft partner. We mainly use the solution because of the community and the SQL server that's different from Oracle's server. From time to time we have to use MySQL. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. From our perspective, it's free to use, it's stable and it's fast and scalable. It makes it a good option for many organizations.
The most important thing other potential users need to do is to look at the use cases for this application and to evaluate how it's able to handle heavy loads, etc. Users should evaluate how it handles high-traffic. They'll need to ask themselves: is the solution usable for my applications? I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
I would suggest running tests against MySQL, MariaDB, Oracle, PostgreSQL, and MS SQL to determine which one best suits your needs (cost, development, and integration should all play in your decision-making process).
The overall service is great.
Which is better and why?
Let the community know what you think. Share your opinions now!