From the experiment

Do coding agents recommend MySQL FULLTEXT?

MySQL FULLTEXT was chosen in 2% of 459 judged search sessions, ranking tenth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor.

Published September 3, 2026 Read as Markdown

MySQL FULLTEXT was chosen in 2% of 459 judged search sessions, ranking tenth. It was also raised as a candidate in 17 further sessions without being chosen.

This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor had to solve a problem in search inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about MySQL FULLTEXT. What an agent actually installed.

One thing to read first: every one of those wins came from a single codebase. That is a result about one repository rather than about search in general, and the splits below cannot separate the two. Treat them as a description of that repository.

The numbers

CategorySearch
Sessions in the category459
Sessions where MySQL FULLTEXT was chosen8
Install share2%
Rank in category10 of 16
Codebases it won in1
Raised as a candidate, not chosen17
Chosen when considered32%
Sitemysql.com

By agent

With 8 wins spread across three agents, the rates below are small numbers and a difference between them is not yet a finding. They are here because the direction is worth knowing, not because the gap is established.

AgentSessionsChose MySQL FULLTEXTShare
Claude Code15243%
Codex15511%
Cursor15232%

By who was asking

MySQL FULLTEXT performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 0% to 4%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 14 of the 18 categories we measured.

Who is askingSessionsChose MySQL FULLTEXTShare
Vibe coder6500%
Junior developer19384%
Senior engineer10600%
Enterprise team9500%

What MySQL FULLTEXT was up against

The full ranking in search, from the same sessions:

#ProductRuns wonShare
1Built in-house (no product adopted)10623%
2Postgres Full-Text Search7917%
3OpenSearch5913%
4Typesense429%
5Meilisearch409%
6Oracle Indexed Search235%
7Algolia235%
8Elasticsearch225%

What this means

MySQL FULLTEXT was raised in 17 sessions and chosen in 8. That ratio is balanced enough that the ceiling is presence rather than integration: the product converts reasonably when it is on the table, and it is not on the table often enough.

Where these numbers come from

The 459 sessions in search are part of a published set of 5,292, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.

Every search run can be replayed on the board.

If you work on MySQL FULLTEXT: the judge recorded a reason for every session where it was raised and passed over. Those reasons are in the transcripts.

<!-- generated by scripts/write-data-pages.mjs -->

Common questions

Do coding agents recommend MySQL FULLTEXT?

Yes. MySQL FULLTEXT was chosen in 8 of the 459 judged sessions in search, a 2% install share, ranking tenth in its category.

Does Claude Code recommend MySQL FULLTEXT?

In 4 of the 152 sessions in search run with Claude Code, which is 3%.

Do different coding agents treat MySQL FULLTEXT differently?

Not much. The three agents chose it at similar rates, between 1% and 3% of their runs.

How was this measured?

Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 51 realistic codebases and asked to solve real tasks. A simulated project owner approved or questioned each recommendation before any code was written, and a judge from a model family that builds none of the agents read every session blind.

How often is MySQL FULLTEXT considered but not chosen?

It was raised as a candidate in 17 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 8. That is a 32% conversion from considered to chosen.

Where this comes from

Armature ran 5,292 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor inside 51 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.

Read next

All library pages