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.
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 …
Although Google Cloud SQL has room for improvement by addressing a minor lack of features, its features and services keep it high among other SQL database products. It is very fast compared to others. Since it is cloud-based, maintenance is also easier. Integration capabilities are also more than expected.
From my own perspective and the tasks that I perform on a daily basis, MySQL is perfect. It has a reasonable footprint, is fast enough and offers the security and flexibility I need. Everyone has their preferred applications and, no doubt, for larger data warehouses or more intensive applications, MySQL may have its limits, but for the area that I operate in, it's a great match.
Security: is embedded at each level in MySQL. Authentication mechanisms are in place for configuring user access and even service account access to applications. MySQL is secure enough under the hood to store your sensitive information. Also, additional plugins are available that sit on top of MySQL for even tighter security.
Widely adopted: MySQL is used across the industry and is trusted the most. Therefore, if you face any problems, simply Google it and you shall land in plenty of forums. This is a great relief as when you are in a need of help, you can find it right in your browser.
Lightweight application: MySQL is not a heavy application. However, the data you store in the database can get heavy with time, but as in the configuration and MySql application files, those are not very heavy and can easily be installed on legacy systems as well.
Although you can add the data you require as more and more data is added, the fixity of it becomes more critical.
As the demand, size, and use of the system increase, you may also need to change or acquire more equipment on your servers, although this is an internal inconvenience for the company.
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.
On demand scalability helps us provision extra resources as per our requirement and load on the application. Reduced cost due to fully managed services and no need to manage underlying infrastructure which reduced time of patching and maintaining underlying infrastructure. Easy to configure as per application requirements. Supports monitoring which is not available in custom hosted database instance on own computing infrastructure
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.
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.
The support staff is friendly, knowledgeable, and efficient. I only had to get part way through my explanations before they had a solution. They will walk you through a fix or actually connect in and fix the problem for you--or would if you can allow it. I've done it both ways with them. They are always forthcoming with 'how to do this if it happens again' information. I love working with MySQL support.
Google SQL was great as a first SQL provision. It quickly enabled the apps to be built and scaled as needed for a while. It was robust and adaptable as needed and easy to export as needed when ready, depending on growth. Cost-wise, it's a good choice and requires little investment to get going.
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.
With managed database system, it has given us near 100% data availability
It has also improved web layer experience with faster processing and authentication using database fields
Google Cloud SQL also gels up well with Google Analytics and other analytics systems for us to join up different data points and process them for deeper dives and analysis
