cockroach

Pros of TiDB

• Better support for MySQL compatibility, making migration easier
• Stronger focus on HTAP (Hybrid Transactional/Analytical Processing) workloads
• More flexible scaling options, including scaling storage and compute independently

Cons of TiDB

• Less mature distributed SQL implementation compared to CockroachDB
• Potentially higher operational complexity due to more components
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to CockroachDB

Code Comparison

TiDB (SQL syntax):

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY,
  name VARCHAR(255),
  created_at TIMESTAMP
);

CockroachDB (SQL syntax):

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY,
  name STRING,
  created_at TIMESTAMP
);

Both databases use similar SQL syntax, with minor differences in data type naming conventions. TiDB aims for MySQL compatibility, while CockroachDB follows PostgreSQL conventions more closely.

TiDB and CockroachDB are both distributed SQL databases designed for scalability and resilience. TiDB offers better MySQL compatibility and HTAP capabilities, while CockroachDB provides a more mature distributed SQL implementation with a larger ecosystem. The choice between them depends on specific use cases, existing infrastructure, and required features.

Pros of etcd

• Lightweight and focused on distributed key-value storage
• Simpler to set up and maintain for basic distributed systems
• Lower resource requirements, suitable for smaller-scale deployments

Cons of etcd

• Limited scalability compared to CockroachDB's distributed SQL capabilities
• Lacks advanced querying and transactional features
• Not designed for handling large volumes of structured data

Code Comparison

etcd (Go):

cli, _ := clientv3.New(clientv3.Config{Endpoints: []string{"localhost:2379"}})
defer cli.Close()
ctx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(context.Background(), time.Second)
_, err := cli.Put(ctx, "key", "value")
cancel()

CockroachDB (SQL):

CREATE TABLE users (id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(), name STRING);
INSERT INTO users (name) VALUES ('Alice');
SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = 'Alice';

etcd focuses on simple key-value operations, while CockroachDB provides full SQL functionality with distributed capabilities. etcd is better suited for configuration management and service discovery, whereas CockroachDB excels in scenarios requiring complex queries and transactions across distributed data.

Pros of Vitess

• Better suited for scaling existing MySQL deployments
• Provides advanced sharding capabilities out of the box
• Lighter weight and easier to set up for MySQL users

Cons of Vitess

• Limited to MySQL compatibility, less flexible than CockroachDB
• Requires more manual configuration for complex sharding scenarios
• Less built-in support for global, multi-region deployments

Code Comparison

Vitess (Go):

func (tsv *TabletServer) Begin(ctx context.Context, target *querypb.Target, options *querypb.ExecuteOptions) (int64, error) {
    span, ctx := trace.NewSpan(ctx, "TabletServer.Begin")
    defer span.Finish()
    return tsv.begin(ctx, target, options)
}

CockroachDB (Go):

func (s *Session) Begin(ctx context.Context) error {
    s.mu.Lock()
    defer s.mu.Unlock()
    if s.mu.txn != nil {
        return errors.New("session already has an active transaction")
    }
    s.mu.txn = s.executor.cfg.DB.NewTxn(ctx, s.DefaultTxnPriority)
    return nil
}

Both projects use Go and implement transaction handling, but Vitess focuses on MySQL-compatible operations while CockroachDB implements its own distributed SQL engine.

Pros of YugabyteDB

• Better support for ACID transactions across multiple nodes
• More flexible deployment options, including multi-cloud and hybrid-cloud setups
• Stronger compatibility with PostgreSQL, making migration easier for existing PostgreSQL users

Cons of YugabyteDB

• Less mature ecosystem and community compared to CockroachDB
• Potentially higher resource consumption in certain workloads
• Steeper learning curve for administrators unfamiliar with distributed databases

Code Comparison

YugabyteDB:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY,
  name TEXT,
  email TEXT
) SPLIT INTO 5 TABLETS;

CockroachDB:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY,
  name STRING,
  email STRING
) PARTITION BY RANGE (id) (
  PARTITION p0 VALUES FROM (MINVALUE) TO (1000),
  PARTITION p1 VALUES FROM (1000) TO (MAXVALUE)
);

Both databases use SQL-like syntax for table creation, but YugabyteDB uses the SPLIT INTO clause for data distribution, while CockroachDB uses PARTITION BY for similar functionality. YugabyteDB's approach is simpler, while CockroachDB offers more granular control over data partitioning.

Pros of Cassandra

• Highly scalable and designed for massive distributed deployments
• Excellent write performance and throughput
• Flexible data model with support for wide rows and dynamic columns

Cons of Cassandra

• Eventual consistency model can be challenging for some use cases
• Less intuitive query language (CQL) compared to SQL
• Limited support for complex joins and transactions

Code Comparison

Cassandra query example:

SELECT * FROM users
WHERE user_id = 123
AND timestamp > '2023-01-01'
LIMIT 10;

CockroachDB query example:

SELECT * FROM users
WHERE user_id = 123
AND timestamp > '2023-01-01'
LIMIT 10;

Both databases use SQL-like syntax, but Cassandra's CQL has some limitations compared to CockroachDB's more comprehensive SQL support. CockroachDB offers better support for complex queries, joins, and transactions, while Cassandra focuses on high-performance, wide-column data storage and retrieval.

CockroachDB provides a more familiar SQL experience and stronger consistency guarantees, making it easier to migrate from traditional relational databases. Cassandra, on the other hand, excels in scenarios requiring extreme scalability and write performance, particularly for time-series data and large-scale distributed systems.