>>>The database is in the server, while MySQL engine is installed in all PCs (server and clients).
>>>
>>Sorry, without further explanation this makes no sense at all. Benefit of MySQL / MariaDB / Postgres / Oracle / DB2 / SQL server is to keep all data on one beefy server. Keeping a local data copy on each client and replicating across all machines feels wasteful at least and an accident waiting to happen
>
>Ironically, I recall seeing apps architected this way because they started life as file-server databases such as VFP or Access. The makers then decided to get some benefits of RDBMSs but put zero effort into creating actual client-server applications. They end up with a local DB install so they can do local data munging like VFP, and the local DB talks to the server DB (if present; this architecture allows for standalone use as well). Often there is zero smarts in how this is used. For example, if a workstation is asked to find a customer by name, the local DB pulls the whole customer table across the LAN from the server DB, and then filters it locally to get the result.

He said "The database is in the server, while MySQL engine is installed in all PCs (server and clients)." which sounds like a worse version of what you said - the engine is on each machine and they share the one database which is on a server. Good old days of file sharing (while it worked), except that the database isn't shared by apps directly, but by local instances of MySql. Which is something I didn't even consider possible (still not sure whether it is, and if it is, whether that's smart).

Or perhaps under "engine" he means the ODBC client?