I have been meaning to get my genome sequenced for several years, as cost has come down a lot, but I have still not done it. The main reason for me is not the direct cost, as prices are now quite affordable (you can get it sequenced for a few hundred dollars now). The main reason is the limited practical info I think I can get out of having my genome sequenced as well as the large amount of time needed to extract that practical info from the sequenced genome. The main reasons for these things are the following:
1) It's a hassle to get the relevant data from the sequenced genome.
Not many years ago I concluded that even if I had my genome sequenced and had the raw data it wouldn't be of much use because there did not exist any good programs that give you practical information from the raw data. To get useful information one would have to look for genetic variations that have unusually high effects on a trait, like e.g. the APOE variants on Alzheimer's, and then figure out how to search the raw data to see if you have those variants or not. You would also need to do a bunch of research into what the effect of each variant is. At the time I didn't know of any service that could easily give you information on such variants from the raw data. Maybe this has changed with new programs like OakVar but I'm not sure since I haven't tried it. Note that I took one of the earliest gene tests over 15 years ago that gave me information on some dozen variants and I spent quite a lot of time on PubMed trying to get information out of it but in the end it turned out to be of very little practical value even though the test contained information on some of the best known genetic variants at the time.
2) Most traits are too complicated to be explained to a large degree by just a few well known genetic variants.
Even if I had a way to easily get information on the most well known researched genetic variants (which ones I have and which ones I don't and what their effects are) I think that would still be of limited use because most traits are not determined in a major way by a combination of few genetic variants but are determined by a complex mix of tons of variants. As an example last year researchers discovered 12000 genetic variants that were associated with height but together they only explained 10-40% of the variation in a person's height! So you can imagine the massive data you would need to get a good idea of your overall genetic propensity to being short or tall. Simply looking at the height of your parents and siblings would give you way more information on your genetic propensity to tallness than any information you could get from sequencing your genome. Although height is probably an example of a trait that is determined by an unusually large combination of genes, most other traits, including the risk of various diseases, are most certainly also determined for the most part by a very large combination of genes. Therefore, massive amounts of data on various genetic variants and their interactions are going to be required to predict some specific traits well. This is the bottleneck in getting useful information out of your sequenced genome right now AFAIK. There are of course some traits that are determined to a significantly large degree by merely a few genetic variations, like e.g. the metabolism of caffeine and various drugs by certain liver enzyme polymorphisms, and for such traits it is easier to get some useful information from a few well known variants, provided that one has some way of extracting that information from the sequenced genome with some program. For most traits however we're only scratching the surface as far as predicting the combination of genetic variants that predict them.
3) Much of the information that can be gained from ones genome today does not provide much practical use.
Even if I manage to get some information from my sequenced genome on some traits, in most cases it's not going to have much practical value at this time. As an example, let’s say I upload my genome to some database that analyzes it with respect to well known genetic variants for risk of cancer and heart disease. Let’s say that it gives me a higher than average risk of heart disease and lower than average risk of cancer. That wouldn't give me much practical information other than suggesting that I should focus more on preventing heart diseases and less on preventing cancer, which wouldn't change much since being actively pursuing longevity I'm already doing a lot to prevent both. It would only have minimal effects on my focus area. The information that would be of more use, but much less is known about, is information on which specific interventions will benefit me personally more than others based on my genes for various things like preventing heart diseases and cancer. Such information is scarcer in the literature so I'm not expecting any databases to give much useful info in this respect.
I know some people that have had their genome sequenced but I don't know anyone that has gotten significant amount of practical actionable information from doing so. While there is huge potential for using individual genome sequences to improve health we're still in the early stages and require more analysis of massive data with powerful artificial intelligence to decipher how all the genes interact to produce each relevant trait and how that can be useful. Until then, the information we can get from sequencing our genomes is highly limited in terms of practical use, contrary to what many promoters of personal sequencing tests will tell you.