MySQL Reviews

The main reason that customers pick MySQL is that it's cost-efficient.

Apart from the features that are in the enterprise part, we find the database to be
valuable. The connectors and the backup features are valuable as well. We use the
basic database. We don't really use the extra features. Our clients like the security
features in the database.

We would like to see more security.

I have been using MySQL for three years. 

My customers haven't mentioned having any problems with stability. 

Scalability is good enough.

I haven't contacted Oracle in regards to MySQL but I have contacted Oracle support for other things. They're okay but from my end, the problem is that they're not proactive. From one to five, I would rate them a four. 

There's a lot of documentation on the Oracle support portal even though you must be contracted customer. There is also a lot of support information on the community portals and google search in general. This is the reason we picked MySQL from the rest.

The initial setup isn't so complex. You have to get a lot of support from the
community. From my end, it's not so complex. You should consult with the
community.

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'm not involved from the database side as much. I primarily use it for reviewing the data structure as the architecture before I build a data model in our BI tools.

General querying is pretty much what I do, and also analyzing data types and data structures within the database itself. I review the data structure within them. And I use that to build the data model, which we have in our reporting environment. That's primarily all I use it for.

What it would compare it to, from my point of view would be, Microsoft SQL Studio. I find the Microsoft solution a bit better. But mostly in terms of the UI layout, I would say. I just find it a little bit more efficient. But to be honest, I can work equally as well with both.

I've been working with MySQL for two and a half years. 

We haven't experienced any issues with scalability.

I haven't directly contacted their technical support. 

I haven't gotten feedback from the IT team.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I would have worked with our IT team in terms of the initial setup. In terms of connecting to the database and to the data sources, it is pretty straightforward.

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.

We are an IT services provider, so the solution is for our customers. I can't answer for the customers in terms of how they use it. 

Typically, customers are running applications that need to connect MySQL and to store some of the data.

The solution is free to use, which is its most valuable aspect.

The interface is quite good.

The stability and scalability are very good.

Overall, it's an excellent solution. We don't have to implement anything else.

We haven't noticed and features that are lacking.

From a user perspective, the initial setup could be simplified a bit.

I've been using the solution since 2000. It's been about 20 years now since I first was introduced to MySQL.

The stability is good. Neither we or our clients have had to deal with bugs, glitches or crashes. Everyone's been satisfied with it. Stability is one of its best features.

The scalability of the solution is good. We haven't had trouble scaling at all.

We're using the community version of the solution. I don't have any complaint with the level of support, however, it is online and there isn't a support line.

The initial setup isn't always straightforward. Sometimes it is complex. For example, if you are doing a database expansion. For database expansion, you have to configure it and you have to know SQL quite well. You have to juggle a few things, which makes it complicated. However, from an IT perspective, it's a good tool, so it's worth the effort.

The solution doesn't cost anything to use. It's absolutely free.

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.

We utilize the DB as a data-repository solution for our front-end applications. The solution gives us the ability to run numerous instances on various geographical cloud servers.

Yes, MySQL has improved numerous processes; it has given us the ability to create applications without absorbing major costs.

• Its ease of use
• It's secure.
• It's fast.
• It has high-end processing.
• It can distribute across clouds.
• It has the ability to run on any operating system.

• I think a better front end would be a better solution (web application front end, similar to what Red Hat is doing to Fedora). 
• Another nice solution for MySQL clustering would be the use of Webmin. 
• Also, security measures could always be improved, and the clustering process could be enhanced as well. I recommend using UFW, iptables, and firewalld.

The solution works extremely well. It is easy to install and works on any platform. The price is good because we utilize various versions of the software/DB.

If the user sets up DB up using MySQL Cluster (creates a grid type of design), then we find the solution from a hardware perspective using NVMe, NVMe-oF, 10GE network connections, and 32-100GB of DDR4 memory (dependent upon customer requirements). 

Scalability can be initiated using high-speed connections across IPv6 connections (IPSec AES-256 ESP/AH VPN connections without purchasing VPN concentrators — this can be done at the network layer).

We use various versions, but most of the time this is based on the client's requirements.

After the initial training, the installation worked pretty well. I would suggest setting it up in a lab. This gives the user room to test the installation and configuration process. It is recommended to use PhpMySQLadmin — (https://www.phpmyadmin.net) — after the installation process is completed.

It was implemented in-house. Most of the applications are tested in our cloud and on-premise servers.

60% ROI (There are DLs — direct labor costs and overhead costs, but once it is set up, we image the configuration and deploy our designs in docker).

I would suggest testing MariaDB before jumping in. This will give the user the ability to test the DB before using it. It is very easy to set up. MariaDB is free, and licensing is based on GNU.

N/A.

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).

I used it to obtain insight into the entire network and the resources being utilized. The current GUI lets us see the traffic happening east to west and the total bandwidth consumed by it.

• It provides visibility, where something was either broken or in pieces only.
• It creates a unified view of the entire architecture and performance factor, helping to manage the network more easily.
• It has a remote access feature to manage the database from a remote location. This enables in-work collaboration.

I have found the following features valuable:

• NetFlow of the whole system
• Information flow and scaling
• Communication between multiple collaborators and stakeholders
• Its user-friendly features.

The only service which could be improved is its usability. The entire user experience needs to be revamped to meet the 2018 design standards.

The overall service is great. 

I use MySQL for employee service in an OLTP database.

I use MySQL for various purposes. Sometimes I have used MyISAM as a storage engine rather than InnoDB.

When working with a cluster wide, I have to use the MySQL cluster version.

The 5.7 version has very better performance improvement over the previous version.

I'm a tester, an optimization tester. It's basically when the developers have the back-end in SQL. We go and test it out for them and check that the table updated correctly, and we do something on the front-end.

To give you an example, initially we didn't have a database server as such, and we had to make use of some database. Now we use something where we can share the instances of the database which were created virtually, which is a very good feature, which I felt has improved our organization.

The most important features would be querying, the query language where you have the data definition or data modification language, as well. In some cases, we have to create our own tables for testing purposes. In that case, having SQL Server is much easier compared to what's available.

I feel that some tools which make it easier to create queries or make it easier for other functions would be really interesting to see.

Pretty much since we have our own in-house SQL branch, the administrators are there, so they take care of the stability with the product. As far as I've seen, there really hasn't been much of an issue with stability.

 It's pretty scalable.

I haven't contacted them, so I have no experience with them. We generally have an internal team which would work on it. So our point of contact is an internal team, rather than going to MySQL.

I've used a lot of different solutions. MySQL is one of the top among them. Usability and scalability are some of the reasons we went with MySQL.

It was pretty straightforward. No hassles with the setup. 

Usually the setup is done by the IT admin guys, but it was pretty straightforward. The IT admin guys had to come in and give us the rights to install it.

I'm not sure about pricing, I don't deal with the pricing. It's an organization decision.

There were many options.

No one tool fits the bill for every company. Do a feasibility study, and get to know what is can do before going in and developing.

Web portal database.

• Free usage
• Performance
• Community

Scaling.

There have been some problems with big table operations.

Some problems with big table operations, and a struggle to keep the servers responding in peak situations.

I don't have enough information about it, as I normally look for community support.

Straightforward, and and easy to run.

Can range from free to quite expensive, depending on the environments and requirements, so better to really set goals ahead of setting it up.

SQL Server, Oracle XE, MariaDB.

It is a stable, reliable, and powerful solution that is quite suited for small to medium organizations and/or projects.