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.

What do you like best about the product?

* Easy to set up and use

* Well-documented and widely supported

* Works well with many applications

* Free and open-source

What do you dislike about the product?

* Some performance limitations with very large datasets

* User interface could be more modern

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

MySQL helps manage and store structured data reliably, which is essential for running web applications, internal tools, and business systems. It allows me to perform complex queries, store large volumes of data, and ensure data integrity—all with minimal setup and cost.

What do you like best about the product?

With Endless online community support and easy of use its a global standard and built in to many web applications. The cost is essentially free and if your purpose is for something like an internal intranet or portal page its perfect. I use it every day for our internal holiday and CRM system as well as for business reporting and it just chugs along with little attention needed.

What do you dislike about the product?

Not as robust and business critical as something like MSSQL but also a hell of a lot cheaper and I still run my companies business analytics and internal intranet pages 24/7 on it with no issues

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

It offers a cheap alternative for not critical business database needs

What do you like best about the product?

I value the InnoDB storage engine for its support for ACID-compliant transactions and its efficient handling of read-heavy operations. The native replication capabilities provide a standard method for scaling out reads and implementing high-availability architectures. The ecosystem includes functional tools like MySQL Workbench, which assists directly with data modeling, server administration, and SQL development. Its cross-platform compatibility ensures a consistent database environment across various operating systems. Finally, the extensive technical documentation and large community make it possible to find solutions to most technical issues.

What do you dislike about the product?

Achieving high performances requires a significant investment in configuration tuning

What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?

Over the years, MySQL has been a foundational component of our technology stack, consistently solving the core challenge of reliable data management as our business has grown. In the beginning, it provided a stable, no-cost entry point for a relational database, allowing our initial application to launch on a proven and secure platform.

As our operations expanded, the problem shifted from simple data storage to managing performance at scale. The primary benefit we've realized is architectural flexibility over the long term. Instead of facing a costly and disruptive migration to a new system, we used MySQL's own features to evolve. By implementing master-slave replication, we were able to offload read-intensive analytics and reporting tasks that were beginning to slow down our main application. This has allowed us to scale our services efficiently, ensuring system responsiveness and stability without needing to re-engineer our entire data layer. In essence, MySQL has provided a continuous and scalable path, supporting our technical requirements year after year.

The primary use case for me is mainly to identify patterns. I am part of a data science team, and our job is to interpret user actions, such as when customers place orders on platforms like Amazon or eBay. We analyze patterns such as how many products are being quickly purchased, what additional items customers are buying, and where demand is surging.

Both MSSQL  and Oracle are versatile tools in their own ways. If we compare MSSQL  and Oracle, MSSQL is very handy for accessing data through SQL Server Management Studio. It allows programming, writing stored procedures, creating views, constraints, and triggers easily. There is some parity between SQL Server and Oracle, but Oracle is tightly coupled to its applications. PostgreSQL  is better for handling JSON files and database migrations.

Oracle could improve on scalability. Currently, to meet scalability requirements, utilizing cloud computing is necessary, which is costly. Especially as PostgreSQL , an open source solution, is gaining popularity in the market.

I started using these solutions since 2008 and continue to use them as part of my work domain.

MySQL  solution is overall stable. I did not see any challenges.

Scalability is a concern. While both solutions are good regarding scalability, open sources like PostgreSQL are competing well. Meeting scalability requirements through cloud computing is an expensive affair.

Regarding MySQL  and Oracle support, I hardly use it much.

Positive

I am not involved in purchasing the tools. Someone buys them for me, and I work on them. I hardly care about the cost.

For MySQL, I hardly used it, but I can rate MSSQL and Oracle. I rate both nine out of ten. They are robust enough, though JSON handling could be improved. Meeting JSON handling needs would reduce the reliance on NoSQL solutions. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.