The only direct comparison that I have professionally would be from a past life where we ran Microsoft SQL Server on Microsoft Servers, and while I served as a technical liaison between a vendor and my customers, there were constant issues within my customers' technical teams …
Amazon Relational Database Service manages MariaDB and MySQL, so if you need to use those databases, then Amazon Relational Database Service will manage everything from the installation to the incremental updates needed for operation. Not having to worry about maintaining a …
We've evaluated using [Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)] against same-capability configurations with MySQL/MariaDB, PostgreSQL, and even Amazon Redshift (though, we haven't evaluated redshift in quite some time). Assuming RDS checks all the boxes for the requirements of …
We used to have On-Premises servers with Microsoft SQL Server and MySQL databases. We used that for years, and we had a hard time and a lot of work involved in securing and updating the server. And not no mention that growth involves a lot of calculations and extra costs. …
At first GCP was considered, but it not very intuitive to use and maintain. We then wanted to run MySQL instances on EC2, which would have been a little cost effective but having limited man power and hassle of patching, scaling and backup led us to select more managed service.
we could use Azure SQL for our project but as our other parts of the solutions existed on AWS, it was a better choice to have AWS RDS or else traffic exiting AWS would have taken a lot of cloud changes. Microsoft SQL Server requires license, either core-based or full license …
These tools are not necessarily competing products. They integrate seamlessly once identity access is established and used to easily manage and support our MySQL RDS instances.
Running MySQL RDS was a simpler solution than running standalone MySQL servers as the semi-managed nature of RDS saved us the need to install, maintain, secure, and backup our database servers. Using MySQL RDS was in addition to running MongoDB Atlas workloads and allowed us to …
In a few words, we are just to confortable working with oracle and sql server. Using RDS add another layer of distributed database in order to backup everything we have in case of a disaster and also complies with authorities locally and internacionally. All database we use, …
With the latest serverless technology Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) has an edge over all its competitors, it works really fast with high log retention.
MongoDB is nosql database and some clients prefer it. In our presentation we try to persuade them to use RDS with its pros and cons. The type of selection depends upon the actual need.
Every traditional rational Database requires server installation & accessing needs to be monitored periodically manually. But Amazon provides easy-to-access and monitor health and scale-up and scale-down option just by clicks without adding any additional hardware.
We needed to use PostgreSQL due to it being the database engine that our application vendor uses. Once we were constrained on the database engine choice then Microsoft products (eg. SQL Server), whether on premise or in the cloud, were not appropriate. Therefore the only …
Even though Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) is costlier than postgre SQL, We prefer Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) just because of high performance and security features
We prefer RDS to spin up our own MySQL instances via traditional servers, EC2 instances, or containers, and RDS provides all of our DB needs compared to other database products AWS offers. As mentioned, the manageable, operational, security, and reliability features of RDS that …
Oracle Autonomous Database is designed for Oracle Database workloads, making it suitable for organizations with existing Oracle investments. RDS supports various database engines. Autonomy and Automation: Oracle Autonomous Database places a strong emphasis on automation for …
Actually you can have most of these tools through AWS Relational Database Service as they are basically those technologies provided as a service. It is way better to have those products provided as a service through a huge and reliable infrastructure like AWS.
It's hard to identify how Amazon RDS stacks up against the databases they support, because to install and use a relational database in a production environment you need a Database Administrator to help install, configure and manage. Amazon RDS keeps the details simple enough …
RDS implements the databases we were interested in and allows us to focus on the application and not the management. AWS handles setting up the server and the database as well as upgrading the software when necessary. Security is simple, using security groups to allow or deny …
Amazon Relational Database Service will probably give you everything you need from a traditional manual DB setup, except everything is managed for you. The only downside is having to pay the premium for the service; however, the trade-off of not having to deal with the …
MySQL provides the option to reduce support and maintenance cost when P0 Level 1 support is not really needed for databases used for noncritical use cases and workloads. Other versions that include Microsoft SQL, Amazon RDS, etc don't provide such options and are overkill. …
I have also used Microsoft SQL Server. It is quite similar to MySQL. However, MySQL has always been my first choice, I have been using it for a very long time. I have also worked with PostgreSQL in a DevOps project. It is good too but a bit hard to learn and understand.
Having used both PostgreSQL and Microsoft SQL Server, I can tell that MySQL performs admirably in a Linux setting. When compared to Microsoft SQL Server, the extra benefit is the minimal or nonexistent licence fee. We find that MySQL's programming interface is particularly …
In terms of capabilities, Microsoft SQL Server is one of the leaders in the database market. It provides a lot of features for high availability, disaster recovery, performance and security. The primary reason why MySQL 8 was chosen was due to the open source nature of the …
Is not a drop-in replacement for any of the things listed above. MySQL has it's purpose and use-cases, same as those. It's a low-cost solution for high read/low write applications and works very well when used in the right circumstances. Support can be purchased from various …
Rest all the big brand databases incure high licensing cost giving almost the same value that MySQL is giving being an open source database. Other databases like Oracle, MS SQL servers need extensive resource along with a huge team to manage those databases. However, thats not …
We chose MySQL because of its open-source nature and its compatibility with various systems, languages, and databases. It is easy to use and fast. Additionally, it has been in the market for more than 30 years now which makes it a reliable option when compared to its …
As I have been commenting in our company, we have solved our performance problems and responses obtaining speed in the queries occupies less disk space, in addition to its price and all the tools of great Scope it possesses.
We let go SQL server as We don't want to use Windows server and bare the cost of Windows licensing.
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose MySQL
MySQL is open source and reduces development costs drastically.
Verified User
Professional
Chose MySQL
MongoDB has a dynamic schema for how data is stored in 'documents' whereas MySQL is more structured with tables, columns, and rows. MongoDB was built for high availability whereas MySQL can be a challenge when it comes to replication of the data and making everything redundant …
Microsoft SQL and SQLite i have used for different scenarios. SQLite is very small database which is more easy to work with low profile devices like mobiles. MySQL is not suitable for that level and MSSQL mainly comparable with MYSQL. MSSQL has complex installations and …
So the main reason i would stack up Mysql from rest of the others is that it is open source which can be helpful for doing any POC on the products and learning new technologies and it is also compatible with all other softwares like Microsoft SQL serve and Postgre Sql
I would say that in a Linux environment MySQL works great compared to both PostgreSQL and MS SQL. The added benefit compared to MS SQL is the low or absent licensing cost. As we use it mainly from PHP the programming interface is great for MySQL. PostgreSQL has many of the …
MySQL is relatively easier to use and than PostgreSQL or SQL Server; it's also cheap to use in production compared to SQL Server. For a beginner who wants to ship something quickly, MySQL is really suited for it.
MySQL offers best conditions for a rapid adoption at the organization. Also because it's free software, you can scale up in implementations without worrying about licenses fees.
MySQL has most of the functionality of other, very costly, alternatives without the big price tag. It is open-source with improvements coming at a relatively good rate. It is not as robust as those other offerings and can have some challenging points at scale for large …
Microsoft SQL can be considered as an enterprise level software since it is recommended for large businesses. Microsoft SQL has some unique categories like big data processing, DBMS, etc. whereas MySQL is not capable of handling such features. I guess this is how these both …
I've been using MySQL for so long that it's my go-to RDBMS. I really like MySQL Workbench in conjunction with MySQL. I've experimented with Amazon DynamoDB in my personal time.
MySQL has a GUI which makes it easy for developers to work upon. It has all features like replication, backup and crash recovery. Also since it is freely available it becomes commercially feasible for people to use this DB. Also MySQL can be easily used as a back end for the …
Verified User
Administrator
Chose MySQL
Easy to use. Cost-effective. Integration with development tools.
Familiarity: With MySQL, I know what to expect, and that goes a long way. Also, since it adheres fairly close to SQL '92, It's relatively easy to construct queries, views, etc. without a steep learning curve. Also, RAM usage is important (this is true of any RDBMS …
First of all, it's free and open source and MySQL supports more programming languages. The MySQL query syntax is easier to learn compared to other database management software. It also works perfectly with Linux or Unix servers. But compared with others, MySQL runs slow on …
The major factor in favor of Microsoft SQL Server as compared to Oracle DBMS is its cost for small to medium enterprises. For larger organizations, Oracle DBMS's value is in being a bit more competitive but when it comes to smaller organizations, Microsft SQL Server is much …
SQL Server is better for large databases containing structured relational data. It makes it easy to group and order, to sum and create tables of data from any data stored in a table or related tables. While Dynamodb is very good at STORING huge amounts of unstructured data, it …
We used MySQL for some smaller projects because this RDBMS works better with a small amount of data and a lot of young workers, especially students, can handle MySQL very well because they learned it at the university. One important thing to keep in mind is that MySQL is …
[Microsoft] SQL Server has a much better community and professional support and is overall just a more reliable system with Microsoft behind it. I've used MySQL in the past and SQL Server has just become more comfortable for me and is my go to RDBMS.
The first database application taught when I was in school was Microsoft SQL Server. Microsoft SQL Server was used where I first started, so I had the opportunity to improve myself in MySQL. SQL is also used in my current workplace. It is widely used in very large projects due …
Verified User
Technician
Chose Microsoft SQL Server
Microsoft SQL is slower than MySQL and Access but far more feature-rich and reliable. Access is almost obsolete nowadays, so not too many people are considering it, but unless budget or an open-source ethos is a factor, Microsoft SQL is superior in every way. Many commonly used …
You could consider i did use MySQL since i worked with some websites that were using a MySQL database. I could not give a side by side comparision since i don't use those like i use the Microsoft SQL , but so far it worked well. I prefer Microsoft SQL due to support and info …
UI of the Microsoft SQL Server makes it easy to use and learn. The better technical support and documentation give it an extra edge over other databases. The Microsoft ecosystem provides additional advantages, as we can seamlessly use other Microsoft products, such as Power …
Microsoft SQL Server is faster and more compatible, but it does cost more, so you're paying for those features. I use the others in many other places where critical transaction processing time and compatibility aren't of great concern.
Microsoft SQL Server providers a more user friendly experience when it comes to Microsoft SQL Server components management via its unique SQL Server management Studio. It is also a production ready, resilient, highly available and tested database management system (DBMS). The …
MS SQL Server is easier to use compared to other RDBMS which really speeds up development time and relatively easier to find a problem when it happens as well. It's also pretty quick to run a query, especially in a large table make it pretty convenient if we need to monitor the …
It just boils down to why learn anther product when you are going to run across it so seldom. Developers determine what database engine I am going to need so I just tend to pick products for implementation that use a well know product that has lots of support resources …
[Microsoft SQL Server] offers a full solution, Inhouse Applications and hosted application continue to use SQL as backend database. Allows easy creation of development environments and continuous feature release.
The free version is very powerfull and easy to install and use for small companies. Going to Professional and Standard, gives you all the support and the flexibility needed. It is known within the Database Administrator crew, and you can get support very easily over the …
Native to Windows and being required for other MS apps puts it above others in terms of usage. If we were not heavily dependent on Microsoft applications or OS, we might have considered other database solutions. It's an expensive solutions but it is a solid reliable solution. …
Microsoft SQL Server is still the industry standard for the type of development we do, and the types of applications that we use. Almost every developer or analyst we hire has at least a reasonable grounding in the use of SQL servers, and it is almost universally compatible …
For our enterprise software, SQL Server has more predictable functionality and tools than the other products we've examined. If we have a question or a problem, it's quite likely someone else has had to deal with the same thing, and it's possible to find help or tips online …
For a single vendor solution, SQL Server is the best choice in my opinion. Most of the other solutions do not offer the full range of products in a single package. Also, for a largely Microsoft shop, there are additional integrations which increase the value proposition. …
Microsoft SQL Server is a DBMS that can be used in any situation, from small projects to big ones, and the latest versions now can be used in several OS platforms. It is a great product with many features over its competitors. It's a mature and robust product. It's easy and …
Compared to free versions, SQL Server just blows away the free/open-source software. Things just run faster, and better, and at less overhead. This is truer and truer with the later versions. Microsoft just invests so much into research and development into their product. And …
Amazon Redshift is a cloud-based data warehouse. It does what it says it will do, but my experience is that for a cloud data warehouse, it is a little slow and I'd hope for performance to be insanely fast. Plus, it is also very costly. Same performance for much less cost in …
Microsoft SQL Server stacks up pretty well - it is well established and has a large userbase. The main reason we selected Microsoft SQL Server over any other RDMS was because of its well established place in the market for such tools and large number of users (easy to hire …
If your application needs a relational data store and uses other AWS services, AWS RDS is a no-brainer. It offers all the traditional database features, makes it a snap to set up, creates cross-region replication, has advanced security, built-in monitoring, and much more at a very good price. You can also set up streaming to a data lake using various other AWS services on your RDS.
MySQL is best suited for applications on platform like high-traffic content-driven websites, small-scale web apps, data warehouses which regards light analytical workloads. However its less suited for areas like enterprise data warehouse, OLAP cubes, large-scale reporting, applications requiring flexible or semi-structured data like event logging systems, product configurations, dynamic forms.
Microsoft SQL is ubiquitous, while MySQL runs under the hood all over the place. Microsoft SQL is the platform taught in colleges and certification courses and is the one most likely to be used by businesses because it is backed by Microsoft. Its interface is friendly (well, as pleasant as SQL can be) and has been used by so many for so long that resources are freely available if you encounter any issues.
Automated Database Management: We use it for streamlining routine tasks like software patching and database backups.
Scalability on Demand: we use it to handle traffic spikes, scaling both vertically and horizontally.
Database Engine Compatibility: It works amazingly with multiple database engines used by different departments within our organization including MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and Oracle.
Monitoring: It covers our extensive monitoring and logging, and also has great compatibility with Amazon CloudWatch
It is a little difficult to configure and connect to an RDS instance. The integration with ECS can be made more seamless.
Exploring features within RDS is not very easy and intuitive. Either a human friendly documentation should be added or the User Interface be made intuitive so that people can explore and find features on their own.
There should be tools to analyze cost and minimize it according to the usage.
Learning curve: is big. Newbies will face problems in understanding the platform initially. However, with plenty of online resources, one can easily find solutions to problems and learn on the go.
Backup and restore: MySQL is not very seamless. Although the data is never ruptured or missed, the process involved is not very much user-friendly. Maybe, a new command-line interface for only the backup-restore functionality shall be set up again to make this very important step much easier to perform and maintain.
Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise edition has a high cost but is the only edition which supports SQL Always On Availability Groups. It would be nice to include this feature in the Standard version.
Licensing of Microsoft SQL Server is a quite complex matter, it would be good to simplify licensing in the future. For example, per core vs per user CAL licensing, as well as complex licensing scenarios in the Cloud and on Edge locations.
It would be good to include native tools for converting Oracle, DB2, Postgresql and MySQL/MariaDB databases (schema and data) for import into Microsoft SQL Server.
We do renew our use of Amazon Relational Database Service. We don't have any problems faced with RDS in place. RDS has taken away lot of overhead of hosting database, managing the database and keeping a team just to manage database. Even the backup, security and recovery another overhead that has been taken away by RDS. So, we will keep on using RDS.
For teaching Databases and SQL, I would definitely continue to use MySQL. It provides a good, solid foundation to learn about databases. Also to learn about the SQL language and how it works with the creation, insertion, deletion, updating, and manipulation of data, tables, and databases. This SQL language is a foundation and can be used to learn many other database related concepts.
We understand that the Microsoft SQL Server will continue to advance, offering the same robust and reliable platform while adding new features that enable us, as a software center, to create a superior product. That provides excellent performance while reducing the hardware requirements and the total cost of ownership of our solution.
I've been using AWS Relational Database Services in several projects in different environments and from the AWS products, maybe this one together to EC2 are my favourite. They deliver what they promise. Reliable, fast, easy and with a fair price (in comparison to commercial products which have obscure license agreements).
I give MySQL a 9/10 overall because I really like it but I feel like there are a lot of tech people who would hate it if I gave it a 10/10. I've never had any problems with it or reached any of its limitations but I know a few people who have so I can't give it a 10/10 based on those complaints.
SQL Server mostly 'just works' or generates error messages to help you sort out the trouble. You can usually count on the product to get the job done and keep an eye on your potential mistakes. Interaction with other Microsoft products makes operating as a Windows user pretty straight forward. Digging through the multitude of dialogs and wizards can be a pain, but the answer is usually there somewhere.
I have only had good experiences in working with AWS support. I will admit that my experience comes from the benefit of having a premium tier of support but even working with free-tier accounts I have not had problems getting help with AWS products when needed. And most often, the docs do a pretty good job of explaining how to operate a service so a quick spin through the docs has been useful in solving problems.
We have never contacted MySQL enterprise support team for any issues related to MySQL. This is because we have been using primarily the MySQL Server community edition and have been using the MySQL support forums for any questions and practical guidance that we needed before and during the technical implementations. Overall, the support community has been very helpful and allowed us to make the most out of the community edition.
We managed to handle most of our problems by looking into Microsoft's official documentation that has everything explained and almost every function has an example that illustrates in detail how a particular functionality works. Just like PowerShell has the ability to show you an example of how some cmdlet works, that is the case also here, and in my opinion, it is a very good practice and I like it.
Other than SQL taking quite a bit of time to actually install there are no problems with installation. Even on hardware that has good performance SQL can still take close to an hour to install a typical server with management and reporting services.
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) stands out among similar products due to its seamless integration with other AWS services, automated backups, and multi-AZ deployments for high availability. Its support for various database engines, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Oracle, provides flexibility. Additionally, RDS offers managed security features, including encryption and IAM integration, enhancing data protection. The pay-as-you-go pricing model makes it cost-effective. Overall, Amazon RDS excels in ease of use, scalability, and a comprehensive feature set, making it a top choice for organizations seeking a reliable and scalable managed relational database service in the cloud.
MongoDB has a dynamic schema for how data is stored in 'documents' whereas MySQL is more structured with tables, columns, and rows. MongoDB was built for high availability whereas MySQL can be a challenge when it comes to replication of the data and making everything redundant in the event of a DR or outage.
[Microsoft] SQL Server has a much better community and professional support and is overall just a more reliable system with Microsoft behind it. I've used MySQL in the past and SQL Server has just become more comfortable for me and is my go to RDBMS.
Increased accuracy - We went from multiple users having different versions of an Excel spreadsheet to a single source of truth for our reporting.
Increased Efficiency - We can now generate reports at any time from a single source rather than multiple users spending their time collating data and generating reports.
Improved Security - Enterprise level security on a dedicated server rather than financial files on multiple laptop hard drives.