I was recently asked this question by an experienced academic at the NY Oracle Users Group event I presented at.
Does MySQL support ACID? (ACID is a set of properties essential for a relational database to perform transactions, i.e. a discrete unit of work.)
Yes, MySQL fully supports ACID, that is Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation and Duration. (*)
This is contrary to the first Google response found searching this question which for reference states “The standard table handler for MySQL is not ACID compliant because it doesn’t support consistency, isolation, or durability”.
The question is however not a simple Yes/No because it depends on timing within the MySQL product’s lifecycle and the version/configuration used in deployment. What is also *painfully* necessary is to understand why this question would even be asked of the most popular open source relational database.
MySQL has a unique characteristic of supporting multiple storage engines. These engines enabling varying ways of storing and retrieving data via the SQL interface in MySQL and have varying features for supporting transactions, locking, index strategies, compression etc. The problem is that the default storage engine from version 3.23 (1999) to 5.1 (2010) was MyISAM, a non-transactional engine, and hence the first point of confusion.
The InnoDB storage engine has been included and supported from MySQL 3.23. This is a transactional engine supporting ACID properties. However, not all of the default settings in the various MySQL versions have fully meet all ACID needs, specifically the durability of data. This is the second point of confusion. Overtime other transactional storage engines in MySQL have come and gone. InnoDB has been there since the start so there is no excuse to not write applications to fully support transactions. The custodianship of Oracle Corporation starting in 2010 quickly corrected this *flaw* by ensuring the default storage engine in MySQL 5.5 is InnoDB. But the damage to the ecosystem that uses MySQL, that is many thousands of open source projects, and the resources that work with MySQL has been done. Recently working on a MySQL 5.5 production system in 2016, the default engine was specifically defined in the configuration defined as MyISAM, and some (but not all tables) were defined using MyISAM. This is a further conversation as to why, is this a upgrade problem? Are there legacy dependencies with applications? Are the decision makers and developers simply not aware of the configuration? Or, are developers simply not comfortable with transactions?
Like other anti-reasonable MySQL defaults the unaware administrator or developer could consider MySQL as supporting ACID properties, however until detailed testing with concurrency and error conditions not realize the impact of poor configuration settings.
The damage of having a non-transactional storage engine as the default for over a decade has created a generation of professionals and applications that abuses one of the primary usages of a relational database, that is a transaction, i.e. to product a unit for work that is all or nothing. Popular open source projects such as WordPress, Drupal and hundreds more have for a long time not supported transactions or used InnoDB. Mediawiki was at least one popular open source project that was proactive towards InnoDB and transaction usage. The millions of plugins, products and startups that build on these technologies have the same flaws.
Further confusion arises when an application uses InnoDB tables but does not use transactions, or the application abuses transactions, for example 3 different transactions that should really be 1.
While newer versions of MySQL 5.6 and 5.7 improve default configurations, until these versions a more commonly implemented non-transactional use in a relational database will remain. A recent Effective MySQL NYC Meetup survey showed that installations of version 5.0 still exist, and that few have a policy for a regular upgrade cadence.