NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB

Post by BlackFingolfin » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

jpgvm wrote: post #10

creshal wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The particular benchmark seems bullshit, too. For postgres they seem to intentionally use the less performant json column type instead of jsonb. Not that I can verify it, because the code in the linked public "No magic, no tricks – check the code and make your own tests!" repository doesn't match the published results and doesn't even work at all with postgres… EDIT: Okay, they pushed a new version containing the Pos…

And despite that Postgres destroys all the other solutions at everything other than the non-sync (lol) single write case and graph traversal. If anything it just proves even after almost a decade of these "NoSQL" solutions being around they still can't compete even on basic queries with Postgres which is a fairly conservative SQL solution.

Post by swasheck » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 3:45 PM UTC

BlackFingolfin wrote: post #20

creshal wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PostgreSQL performed very well Despite the fact that you crippled it by not using jsonb columns.

Why so hostile? Personally, I assume this is just an instance of them not being PostgeSQL experts. So, before jumping to conclusions (namely that they deliberatly skewed their test, despite being very open in the way they described the setup), I'll instead wait and see -- perhaps they'll explain why they used json instead of jsonb, or perhaps (better!) they can updat the test to also include jsonb.

Post by collyw » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 3:52 PM UTC

yahliwharton wrote: post #22

baldfat wrote: post #19

I was kind of shocked how good PostgesSQL did. I still think PostgresSQL and MariaDB are a better tool for most jobs considered big data.

This is not a cluster test. NoSQL databases in general are optimized for scaling horizontally on commodity hardware. That's more tricky in RDBMS.

Post by k__ » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

BlackFingolfin wrote: post #20

creshal wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PostgreSQL performed very well Despite the fact that you crippled it by not using jsonb columns.

Why so hostile? Personally, I assume this is just an instance of them not being PostgeSQL experts. So, before jumping to conclusions (namely that they deliberatly skewed their test, despite being very open in the way they described the setup), I'll instead wait and see -- perhaps they'll explain why they used json instead of jsonb, or perhaps (better!) they can updat the test to also include jsonb.

Post by brightball » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #25

yahliwharton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a cluster test. NoSQL databases in general are optimized for scaling horizontally on commodity hardware. That's more tricky in RDBMS.

Most people I have spoken to are using NoSQL on single nodes.