MySQL

My opinion on MySQL  is that it is the second most popular database after Oracle, and we are using MySQL  for several of our customers. So far, my experience with MySQL is very good for organizations that consider database security and availability as priorities. These features are already available with MySQL. Security is inbuilt with the database, and clusters are also possible using MySQL. Availability and sharding features are present, which is why this is a larger database.

I think its replication capabilities are very good.

MySQL has helped my customers' database management by providing better RTO and RPO. The RPO can be less, RTO can be less, using this replication software. It's an inbuilt feature of the database itself, and you don't have to purchase an additional license for the replication.

Regarding their documentation and interface, there is room for improvement. Documentation is definitely required when running multiple databases on a cluster system. The load balancer, MySQL LB, which is used to connect to the application, lacks clear documentation. When there are multiple application servers connecting to the MySQL cluster and going through the MySQL load balancer, the documentation is not user-friendly. It's there, but only technical persons with deep knowledge of the MySQL database can implement it. Most of the community users or ISVs who use MySQL don't have many technical persons or DBA experts, so they face some challenges for the high availability of connecting high available databases from high available applications. That documentation should be simplified.

When we talk about their performance, I never hear from any of my customers about bugs, problems with stability, or updates.

I would rate the technical support for MySQL as very limited since normally everything is available on the blog post. I have never reached out to the support team or Oracle support team for MySQL-related support, so I cannot comment on this.

Neutral

In my opinion, this is not a pretty expensive tool. It is reasonable because it does not base on different components. Oracle has different components, so if you need security, you have to procure a different license, but here everything is inbuilt and it's not costly.

From their competitors, they could learn from PostgreSQL . Recently there was a discussion where a customer was planning MySQL to PostgreSQL  migrations, but finally , they decided to stop moving out from MySQL because of benefits such as sharding features, availability, and clusters. These are not apple-to-apple comparisons between both products. There are some other similar options such as MariaDB , but it's not that popular. Though the base is the same for MySQL and MariaDB , it is not as widely used.

I would assess the value of ACID compliant transactions in MySQL as good, pretty good.

When it comes to spatial extensions, I haven't used spatial extensions for MySQL database, so I cannot comment at this stage.

It's difficult to say how many user transactions MySQL handles for my customers who have applications. I don't have that figure at this stage, but I know big organizations are using MySQL where up to 10 to 20,000 transactions per five to six hours are processed.

The main weaknesses of MySQL depend on the context. For critical workload and financial transactions, customers don't use MySQL; they use Oracle. Talking about our customers, I don't get any complaints that they are facing challenges with MySQL that make them want to move to other databases.

There is no problem with their marketing strategy, as they have been very active for the last two to three years. Initially when Oracle took over this database, there was no dedicated team. Now there is a dedicated team, and they are doing very well with their marketing strategy for MySQL.

Their implementation is very easy.

I believe they have all the features which the segment of customers using this database requires. All the features are available, and MySQL is releasing new features regularly, such as enhancing the security postures. I don't think any new features are required at this stage.

I rate MySQL a nine out of 10, and there is no limit to what they could do to make it even better. Whatever performance or new features you're going to add, somebody else will ask for different features.

Positive

We are using two or three types of databases in our organization, such as Oracle and MySQL . We usually use the MySQL  database for the business applications that we develop in-house.

The most valuable feature is the on-premises data encryption facilities. By default, we can provide encryption, and this feature in MySQL is why we prefer it over other databases. The native encryption in MySQL encourages us to use this database model more frequently compared to Oracle and other databases. 

With Oracle, we have to buy another solution for encryption and masking, but MySQL supports native encryption, which enhances our return on investment. It perfectly supports our ROI, and we have no issues with its functionality.

The data masking functionality should be improved as well as the native encryption functionality in the MySQL database. It could be more beneficial if MySQL can enhance its data masking functionality in the same way it has improved data encryption.

I have been using it for around ten years.

We face certain integration issues, especially when we integrate the database with security solutions like IBM QRadar , which affects database performance.

We have a local vendor available here in Pakistan, who provides service. As far as the principal is concerned, we do not directly communicate with them. We have a vendor here, so we have no issues and usually receive timely responses. I would rate customer service nine out of ten.

Positive

We are working with Oracle, and we also use a file database called GT.M.

It is a pretty simple deployment process that can take around two to three hours.

We have a dedicated database administration team responsible for implementation. We have around five to ten people in the team.

We estimate the ROI to be around 40%.

With respect to BAM , database activity monitoring, when we integrate BAM  solutions, we face certain integration challenges. These are mainly compatibility issues, like when IBM Guardian  is integrated with MySQL for database monitoring. Despite these challenges, the availability of support from IBM helps us to overcome them. 

The product is highly recommended for its compatibility with other platforms like dot net framework. It easily integrates with in-house development functionalities and provides excellent relational database functionality. 

Overall, I give it an eight out of ten.

We use MySQL in multiple projects for storing, task management apps, and dating apps.

MySQL is the best option for the Laravel PHP framework. It supports multiple model systems, and it's very easy to call MySQL compared to other languages like MongoDB. I prefer MySQL for the Laravel PHP framework.

The solution's security features depend on where we host our server and database. We have some preventive measures to reduce attacks. We have taken authentication and only allow a particular IP address.

In MySQL, we need to define every table beforehand.

I have been using MySQL for four to five years.

In MySQL, we need to define every table beforehand. However, we don't need to do so in MongoDB. We can add a new row or column in MongoDB anytime, making it much easier. If you purchase MongoDB's plan, it supports many security features, and you don't need to check about security. They will handle everything.

The solution’s initial setup is very easy. For the first time, the solution's implementation will take some time. However, you can use it multiple times after you configure it.

MySQL is a cheap solution.

Maintaining the database is a task. We take a weekly backup for each database so that we can upload it to the server if anything happens to the data. We created a cron job so that the data can be taken and then uploaded to a specific space so that we can go back to the particular big data whenever we want. I prefer MongoDB for scalability because it's much easier to maintain MongoDB.

Just one person is enough to maintain the solution. The solution has good documentation available on Google.

Overall, I rate the solution six and a half out of ten.

I use MySQL as a metadata database to store information about our product and transactions from other platforms. We extract and store these transactions daily.

I find MySQL's relational data storage format very useful for data management. Our structure is well-defined and easy for end users and business stakeholders to read. I appreciate the tool's simplicity and ability to integrate with our backend tools.

Performance optimization techniques in MySQL are foundational and very useful. Many big database tools are based on their techniques. We use basic optimization methods like indexes and constraints, which should be set up early when designing the database schema. These optimizations are important for us and work well with MySQL.

As for areas that could be improved, the tool is often used as a local database on laptops. But now, we're moving to cloud-based solutions that are more scalable and highly available. I think the tool should offer a cloud database option. This would let users keep a local copy of data if needed, but also have their data available across different regions through a cloud account. 

The product's stability is high. 

I rate the tool's scalability as about six out of ten. It's moderate since it's a relational database, so scalability depends on the data volume we can store. We use MySQL mainly for structured data in its final state. About 1800 people use MySQL in our organization. Around 1200 use it daily, and about 600 developers use it for local databases or small project tasks.

MySQL has been in the market for a long time, and its community keeps growing. As developers, we've gotten full support from them since we started using it. This includes help from their support team and software team and assistance with any technical issues we encounter.

Positive

I'd rate the initial setup as nine out of ten for ease, with ten being the easiest. It's very simple for beginners to set up because the documentation is thorough, and each step is well explained. The deployment usually takes minutes to hours, depending on the data volume we're putting into the database. It typically doesn't take longer than a day.

MySQL has had a moderate impact on our cost efficiency so far. We mainly use it for local development in our internal environments. For production, we use other cloud solutions. However, MySQL's impact on our operational productivity is significant. It's very reliable for all the solutions we're building.

I rate the solution's pricing as four out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. For our basic needs, it's quite affordable. However, the cost increases when we need to scale up or require high availability. Our developer team of about 600 people uses MySQL without much issue. The pricing becomes more of a concern on the business side, as we have more end users and need constant database availability and scaling. In those cases, the solution gets a bit more expensive, even though it provides good value for the business.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.