4 ms·

What advantages do I have using Cockroach compared to Postgres, Cassandra, Rethink or MongoDB? (I know that all of them are completely different, that's part of

by nik736 9y ago

What advantages do I have using Cockroach compared to Postgres, Cassandra, Rethink or MongoDB? (I know that all of them are completely different, that's part of the question)

irfansharif 9y ago
We have an comparison page[1] that might potentially be what you're looking for. [1]: https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/cockroachdb-in-comparison.html https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/cockroachdb-in-comparison...
- elmalto 9y ago
  Do you have any performance comparisons as well?
  - arjunnarayan 9y ago
    So performance is complicated. Right now, we’re performance testing CockroachDB regularly, and everything is out in the open. Everything we do is tracked with a GitHub issue with the “perf:” prefix, if you want to follow along. Here are all our issues that track performance: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20perf%3A https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%... Here’s our open source repository where we keep our load generators: https://github.com/cockroachdb/loadgen https://github.com/cockroachdb/loadgen A blog post (well, many) are in the works outlining our performance benchmarking. The situation on the ground is changing fast - our performance has improved rapidly over the past months, and each time we sit down to write a blog post, it gets quickly obsoleted. So, trust that we will have a blog post talking about performance very soon. Anecdotally, our customers are not finding performance to be a bottleneck. I encourage you to set up a Cockroach cluster, and try the various load generators (we've got the standards and a couple other homegrown ones in the repository).
chuckledog 9y ago
From the linked website: "CockroachDB provides scale without sacrificing SQL functionality. It offers fully-distributed ACID transactions, zero-downtime schema changes, and support for secondary indexes and foreign keys". Significantly, CockroachDB has had extensive design dedicated to surviving adverse network conditions (see Jepsen references in other posts)
zzzcpan 9y ago
They are targeting MySQL/Postgres users, basically a post-CAP approach to RDBMS. But if you can work with eventual consistency, they are definitely not your first choice.
- benesch 9y ago
  [Cockroach Labs engineer here.] Yes, if very low-latency (i.e., P99 latency sub-5ms) reads and writes are critical to your application, CockroachDB should not be your first choice. That said, one of the primary motivations for CockroachDB is that most existing systems don't handle eventual consistency well. In our experience, most developers will eventually write code that assumes a consistent database, either accidentally or intentionally, because it works most of the time. Dealing with eventual consistency is hard. Rather than "if you can work with eventual consistency, you should look elsewhere," the sentiment we're trying to cultivate is "if and only if your performance requirements can't work with strong consistency, then you should look elsewhere."
  - trimbo 9y ago
    > P99 latency sub-5ms Has the team cooked up any latency benchmarks for different configurations? E.g. same-rack, same-zone, multi-zone, multi-region?
    - arjunnarayan 9y ago
      Not in a rigorous fashion yet, but we will talk about that soon. I've got a couple other comments on this post talking about performance benchmarking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308770 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308903
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    I support the default on consistence the way you posed it. Main reason is safe-by-default construction has proven more effective for average programmer over decades. The other approach caused many disasters.

by nik736 9y ago

What advantages do I have using Cockroach compared to Postgres, Cassandra, Rethink or MongoDB? (I know that all of them are completely different, that's part of the question)

irfansharif 9y ago

We have an comparison page[1] that might potentially be what you're looking for. [1]: https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/cockroachdb-in-comparison.html https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/cockroachdb-in-comparison...

elmalto 9y ago
Do you have any performance comparisons as well?
- arjunnarayan 9y ago
  So performance is complicated. Right now, we’re performance testing CockroachDB regularly, and everything is out in the open. Everything we do is tracked with a GitHub issue with the “perf:” prefix, if you want to follow along. Here are all our issues that track performance: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20perf%3A https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%... Here’s our open source repository where we keep our load generators: https://github.com/cockroachdb/loadgen https://github.com/cockroachdb/loadgen A blog post (well, many) are in the works outlining our performance benchmarking. The situation on the ground is changing fast - our performance has improved rapidly over the past months, and each time we sit down to write a blog post, it gets quickly obsoleted. So, trust that we will have a blog post talking about performance very soon. Anecdotally, our customers are not finding performance to be a bottleneck. I encourage you to set up a Cockroach cluster, and try the various load generators (we've got the standards and a couple other homegrown ones in the repository).

chuckledog 9y ago

From the linked website: "CockroachDB provides scale without sacrificing SQL functionality. It offers fully-distributed ACID transactions, zero-downtime schema changes, and support for secondary indexes and foreign keys". Significantly, CockroachDB has had extensive design dedicated to surviving adverse network conditions (see Jepsen references in other posts)

zzzcpan 9y ago

They are targeting MySQL/Postgres users, basically a post-CAP approach to RDBMS. But if you can work with eventual consistency, they are definitely not your first choice.

benesch 9y ago
[Cockroach Labs engineer here.] Yes, if very low-latency (i.e., P99 latency sub-5ms) reads and writes are critical to your application, CockroachDB should not be your first choice. That said, one of the primary motivations for CockroachDB is that most existing systems don't handle eventual consistency well. In our experience, most developers will eventually write code that assumes a consistent database, either accidentally or intentionally, because it works most of the time. Dealing with eventual consistency is hard. Rather than "if you can work with eventual consistency, you should look elsewhere," the sentiment we're trying to cultivate is "if and only if your performance requirements can't work with strong consistency, then you should look elsewhere."
- trimbo 9y ago
  > P99 latency sub-5ms Has the team cooked up any latency benchmarks for different configurations? E.g. same-rack, same-zone, multi-zone, multi-region?
  - arjunnarayan 9y ago
    Not in a rigorous fashion yet, but we will talk about that soon. I've got a couple other comments on this post talking about performance benchmarking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308770 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308903
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  I support the default on consistence the way you posed it. Main reason is safe-by-default construction has proven more effective for average programmer over decades. The other approach caused many disasters.