Compared to PostgreSQL and MySQL, Google BigQuery is faster and more scalable for large datasets. It’s serverless, so there’s no need to manage infrastructure. We chose Google BigQuery for its ease of use built-in analytics features
We selected BigQuery since we were already making use of many other offerings within the Google Cloud Platform and it made sense to stay within that eco-system. Of course, we made sure it met our needs and was cost-effective, and when it did we didn't seriously consider an …
Main reason is how it integrates directly with the google ecosystem which really facilitates the automatization proceses for the whole company. This ensures that sales and all the other departments have the correct information on a daily bases with a ease of use with day to day …
I have used most of the data analytics platforms. Based on my work, I have found that the user interface of Google BigQuery is simple to navigate. I like the front view - ease of joining tables, and integration with other platforms.
SingleStore has a much lower query latency compared to BigQuery. Thus, we segregate faster tasks to SingleStore, and use BigQuery has our main database to store all historical data.
It's dramatically faster than running MySQL on a VM, which is what we did before. Whatever Google has done to optimize Google Cloud SQL compared to standalone MySQL installations has worked.
It is easy to connect Google Cloud SQL with the Compute Engine, Cloud Run, BigQuery, or PubSub. The connection inside the Google infrastructure is much more secured and fast when they are in same zone/region, so never faced any issues. The documentation is excellent to connect …
Given this is a hosted solution, database a service it helps in removing the effort of maintaining these databases manually. Eases out the pain of upgrading, applying security patches and keeping things running without having to worry about missed changes. The database can be …
BigQuery is a great analytical database and is generally our first choice for large analytical workloads. While its performance and throughput far outperforms Google Cloud SQL but it supports a far limited dialets of SQL. Generally a significant rewrite will be needed for …
The Google Cloud SQL offering fits into our development stack and was a clean replacement for our MySQL database. If we had been using SQL Server instead, then the offering from Azure would have made more sense. I have used both in the past and both work well, with GCP being …
Google Cloud SQL is very similar to other cloud provider options. AWS and DigitalOcean are direct competitors, While Azure is focusing on their own products. At cloud provider level, it's a matter of choosing the provider, and this product will not play a significant role on …
I have used Google BigQuery and it is very difficult to start with it. Although it is very fast and the speed performance is much better with BigQuery but it costs and is very difficult to start with. There's also no proper documentation on it, so MySQL wins in terms of …
Before MySQL, our team was exploring and evaluating different options for a good RDMS (relational database management system) service. We explored Oracle, MSSQL, and Google BigQuery. Most of these are costly and not easy to maintain in the long run in terms of price especially …
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 …
Event-based data can be captured seamlessly from our data layers (and exported to Google BigQuery). When events like page-views, clicks, add-to-cart are tracked, Google BigQuery can help efficiently with running queries to observe patterns in user behaviour. That intermediate step of trying to "untangle" event data is resolved by Google BigQuery. A scenario where it could possibly be less appropriate is when analysing "granular" details (like small changes to a database happening very frequently).
Does what it promises well, for instance, as a sidecar for the main enterprise data warehouse. However, I would not recommend using it as the main data warehouse, particularly due to the heavy business logic, as other dedicated tools are more suitable for ensuring scalable operations in terms of change management and multi-developer adjustments.
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.
GSheet data can be linked to a BigQuery table and the data in that sheet is ingested in realtime into BigQuery. It's a live 'sync' which means it supports insertions, deletions, and alterations. The only limitation here is the schema'; this remains static once the table is created.
Seamless integration with other GCP products.
A simple pipeline might look like this:-
GForms -> GSheets -> BigQuery -> Looker
It all links up really well and with ease.
One instance holds many projects.
Separating data into datamarts or datameshes is really easy in BigQuery, since one BigQuery instance can hold multiple projects; which are isolated collections of datasets.
Please expand the availability of documentation, tutorials, and community forums to provide developers with comprehensive support and guidance on using Google BigQuery effectively for their projects.
If possible, simplify the pricing model and provide clearer cost breakdowns to help users understand and plan for expenses when using Google BigQuery. Also, some cost reduction is welcome.
It still misses the process of importing data into Google BigQuery. Probably, by improving compatibility with different data formats and sources and reducing the complexity of data ingestion workflows, it can be made to work.
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.
We have to use this product as its a 3rd party supplier choice to utilise this product for their data side backend so will not be likely we will move away from this product in the future unless the 3rd party supplier decides to change data vendors.
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.
I think overall it is easy to use. I haven't done anything from the development side but an more of an end user of reporting tables built in Google BigQuery. I connect data visualization tools like Tableau or Power BI to the BigQuery reporting tables to analyze trends and create complex dashboards.
As with other cloud tools, users must learn a new terminology to navigate the various tools and configurations, and understand Google Cloud's configuration structure to perform even the most basic operations. So the learning curve is quite steep, but after a few months, it gets easier to maintain.
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.
I have never had any significant issues with Google Big Query. It always seems to be up and running properly when I need it. I cannot recall any times where I received any kind of application errors or unplanned outages. If there were any they were resolved quickly by my IT team so I didn't notice them.
I think Google Big Query's performance is in the acceptable range. Sometimes larger datasets are somewhat sluggish to load but for most of our applications it performs at a reasonable speed. We do have some reports that include a lot of complex calculations and others that run on granular store level data that so sometimes take a bit longer to load which can be frustrating.
BigQuery can be difficult to support because it is so solid as a product. Many of the issues you will see are related to your own data sets, however you may see issues importing data and managing jobs. If this occurs, it can be a challenge to get to speak to the correct person who can help you.
GCP support in general requires a support agreement. For small organizations like us, this is not affordable or reasonable. It would help if Google had a support mechanism for smaller organizations. It was a steep learning curve for us because this was our first entry into the cloud database world. Better documentation also would have helped.
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.
PowerBI can connect to GA4 for example but the data processing is more complicated and it takes longer to create dashboards. Azure is great once the data import has been configured but it's not an easy task for small businesses as it is with BigQuery.
Unlike other products, Google Cloud SQL has very flexible features that allow it to be selected for a free trial account so that the product can be analyzed and tested before purchasing it. Integration capabilities with most of the web services tools are easier regarding Google Cloud SQL with its nature and support.
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.
We have continued to expand out use of Google Big Query over the years. I'd say its flexibility and scalability is actually quite good. It also integrates well with other tools like Tableau and Power BI. It has served the needs of multiple data sources across multiple departments within my company.
Google Support has kindly provide individual support and consultants to assist with the integration work. In the circumstance where the consultants are not present to support with the work, Google Support Helpline will always be available to answer to the queries without having to wait for more than 3 days.
Previously, running complex queries on our on-premise data warehouse could take hours. Google BigQuery processes the same queries in minutes. We estimate it saves our team at least 25% of their time.
We can target our marketing campaigns very easily and understand our customer behaviour. It lets us personalize marketing campaigns and product recommendations and experience at least a 20% improvement in overall campaign performance.
Now, we only pay for the resources we use. Saved $1 million annually on data infrastructure and data storage costs compared to our previous solution.
Improved integration with Google Cloud, we have set up some automations with Google Workspace, and we have noticed that the raw data sharing between them is very fast as compared to using some other managed database, not sure why.
Due to some downtime during maintenance, we had to set up a relatively small service which ingested the data while this went down and dumped it when it came back up. So this was a negative impact on our ROI, since now we had to remedy this downtime against the same profit margins
It was cheaper than the legacy aws service since we needed large database instances
