Frankly it is too early to tell how CockroachDB will fare, as it hasn’t been
fully released nor it is in production available. Also we have not seen a PoC with benchmarks against Crate yet. But we checked out the info available and compared to CockroachDB Crate offers:
- memory based forward indices for faster aggregations
- A better advanced indexing engine
- better full text search
- blob support
- Storage Engine:
Crate uses Lucene (large set of indexing, full-text, geo-spatial, row-based, column based) vs CockroachDB Key/Value Store (RocksDB, proprietary), rather simple Operations, limited full-text
- Query Engine:
Crate offers a Native Query Analyzer, Planner and Execution Engine, Map/Reduce vs Cockroach with layers on top of K/V store, however few layers implemented yet.
- eventual consistency vs Cockroach claims full ACID
Crate uses row based hashing for sharding, plus configurable partitioning vs Cockroach has simple MongoDB style range-based sharding.
- Scale: Crate is in production with large clusters (>100 nodes) vs Cockroach is alpha/beta (cDB), tested <24 nodes (fDB)