Crate vs CockroachDB

< Back to Overview

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
  • Sharding:
 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)

A little disclaimer: comparisons depend on generalizations by their very nature. Let us know if you think we didn’t get something right and get in contact.

SCHEDULE A 1-ON-1 DEMO WITH A DATABASE ENGINEER

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form