I recently wrote about the increasing popularity and range of adoption choices for the PostgreSQL database. Having done so, it is also worth taking the time to assess the health of another significant open-source database: MySQL. As with PostgreSQL, potential adopters of MySQL have a variety of different options available, thanks to a broad ecosystem of service, support and software providers. Unlike PostgreSQL, which is developed by an open community, MySQL is owned and developed by a single provider. This has been a source of tension for the MySQL provider and user ecosystem throughout the project’s history. While MySQL-related products have prospered at Oracle since it became the project’s owner in 2010, tension resurfaced this year amid calls from some members of the MySQL community for Oracle to consider handing the MySQL project over to a provider-neutral, non-profit foundation. Given this discussion, it’s timely to evaluate the past, present and potential future of MySQL.
MySQL is a relational database that was created in the mid-1990s by developers David Axmark, Monty Widenius and Allan Larsson. MySQL rose to prominence in the late 1990s thanks to its free availability, ease of use and its association with Linux, Apache and PHP/Perl/Python as part of the “LAMP” stack. It was widely adopted as a platform for the development and deployment of web applications, including the likes of Drupal and WordPress. While MySQL is an open-source project, its development has always been dominated by the commercial company that owns the codebase, which can sell proprietary versions. The original commercial company, MySQL AB, was founded by the project’s developers in 1995 and acquired by Sun Microsystems in 2008, prior to Oracle’s acquisition of Sun two years later.
Concern that Oracle might see MySQL as a challenge to its Oracle Database product and shut down the project prompted Widenius to create the MariaDB fork of the MySQL
Introduced in 2021, HeatWave adds capabilities for real-time analytics, machine learning, generative artificial intelligence and vector processing, in addition to delivering support for a Lakehouse architecture. I assert that through 2028, more than two-thirds of enterprises will use general-purpose databases to store and process vector embeddings for use with GenAI applications and AI agents.
Oracle is by no means alone in offering a MySQL database managed service. MySQL-compatible DBaaS offerings are available from a range of providers, including Aiven, Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Huawei Cloud, IBM, Microsoft Azure and Tencent Cloud. Another prominent provider is Percona. While it doesn’t offer a managed service it does offers services, support and additional software for MySQL. [PB1] Just over one-quarter (26%) of the providers assessed in the 2026 ISG Data Platforms Buyers Guide offer a data platform product based on MySQL. Together with enterprise customers and other software tools providers, these form what is loosely referred to as the MySQL community.
While MySQL still claims to be the world's most popular open-source database based on adoption, there are indications that its popularity has been waning in recent years. Having been named the most popular database by respondents to the Stack Overflow Developer Survey between 2017 and 2022, MySQL has placed second to PostgreSQL for the past three years. This is one of the factors that led some members of the MySQL community to recently voice their dissatisfaction, arguing in an open letter that the project faces several challenges, including fragmentation and lack of transparency, and demanding that Oracle consider handing the project to a provider-neutral, non-profit foundation.
There has long been friction in the MySQL community related to project ownership and licensing. The MySQL Community Edition is freely available through the General Public License, but project development and licensing have always been the domain of the commercial entity behind it. Rather than being developed through a collaborative effort, MySQL AB, Sun Microsystems and now Oracle have governed the development process for each new version. As the legal code owner, these companies also released proprietary versions or extensions, creating an advantage over supporters and distributors of the Community Edition.
Despite the tone of the recent open letter, only Oracle can decide the future of the MySQL project, and only Oracle can decide if the benefits of creating an independent foundation would outweigh the costs. Oracle has declined to engage in a public conversation with the authors of the open letter. However, it has recently demonstrated that it recognizes the need to refresh its approach to engaging with the MySQL community by increasing transparency and facilitating greater participation. Despite that, several companies recently announced the launch of The OurSQL Foundation as a non-profit organization designed to represent companies working with and supporting MySQL and compatible products. The board of The OurSQL Foundation includes representatives from Percona, PlanetScale, PingCAP, VillageSQL and Alibaba.
Throughout the debate that preceded Oracle’s ownership of MySQL, I was always skeptical of the claim that it would shut down the project. It was evident at the time that it was in Oracle’s commercial interest to invest in the project and benefit from a revenue stream that was largely additive to its existing Oracle Database business. Today, there may be a similar argument that it is in Oracle’s commercial interests to reinvigorate the MySQL community and spark innovation. There is a valid point that the MySQL database is not as popular as it once was. But the provider ecosystem remains active, and Oracle has demonstrated that it sees the benefit—both to itself and the wider ecosystem—of increased transparency and community engagement. It remains to be seen whether The OurSQL Foundation can fulfill its aim of representing the overall community and whether it and Oracle can find a way of working together. Either way, I recommend that enterprises evaluating data platform providers continue to include the various MySQL products and providers in the assessments.
Regards,
Matt Aslett