I mentioned Thunderbolt as an alternative but the reality is only a few people actually choose to connect external drives via Thunderbolt because it's expensive compared to USB. (Although I use a Thunderbolt external SSD.) A cheap Thunderbolt enclosure (SATA connector) is about $100, compared to $25 for a USB 3.0 UASP enclosure and the speed difference, if you put the drive in them, may be 10% (I haven't seen tests so this is just a guess). You can connect really fast SSD's (PCIe 4-lane or RAID0) via Thunderbolt, but they're several hundred dollars and up.
At that point, if you want speed, it's probably better to buy the Mini with an Apple SSD (PCIe) inside. You need to buy it at the time of purchase because Apple uses a proprietary connection and currently, the after-market alternatives are taken from other Macs and/or more expensive than what it cost to get it when you buy it initially as part of the computer. A 256GB PCIe is $200 from Apple (this option no longer has the 1TB HDD). The PCIe SSD from Apple will be around 40% faster than a SATA SSD. However, I don't know that most people would be able to tell the difference between the PCIe SSD and either an internal SATA SSD or an external SSD connected via USB or Thunderbolt. I have a MySQL database, Eclipse (Java), Xcode and I don't think it would be a big difference between the PCIe SSD and the SATA drive I have now (although my main machine is the 2012 Mac, which doesn't have the PCIe connector). If I really wanted more speed, for myself, I would look towards something like a Mac Pro vs. just trying to find just a faster SSD. You can also get the fusion drive, but unless you think that you need the 1TB, for what you want to use it for (development, database, office apps), it's probably better to get a 256GB PCIe SSD and use the Evo as an external drive via USB. It's hard to make a precise recommendation unless you know what kind of database size you have and how big the applications and other data are.