mysql-server

Pros of MariaDB server

• More open development process with community contributions
• Enhanced performance features like thread pool and parallel replication
• Additional storage engines and plugins out-of-the-box

Cons of MariaDB server

• Potential compatibility issues with some MySQL-specific features
• Smaller ecosystem and less enterprise support compared to MySQL

Code comparison

MySQL server:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
  name VARCHAR(50),
  email VARCHAR(100) UNIQUE
);

MariaDB server:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
  name VARCHAR(50),
  email VARCHAR(100) UNIQUE,
  INDEX (name)
) ENGINE=InnoDB;

The code examples show similar syntax for creating tables, with MariaDB including an additional index on the name column and explicitly specifying the InnoDB storage engine. Both databases support these features, but MariaDB often includes more optimizations by default.

While the core SQL syntax remains largely compatible between MySQL and MariaDB, differences may arise in advanced features, performance optimizations, and specific storage engine capabilities. MariaDB tends to introduce new features more rapidly, while MySQL focuses on stability and enterprise-grade support.

Pros of Postgres

• More advanced features like full-text search, JSON support, and custom data types
• Better compliance with SQL standards and ACID properties
• Stronger community-driven development and open-source ethos

Cons of Postgres

• Generally slower performance for read-heavy workloads
• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Less widespread adoption in some enterprise environments

Code Comparison

MySQL:

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

Postgres:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
  name VARCHAR(255),
  created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
);

The main difference in this example is the use of AUTO_INCREMENT in MySQL versus SERIAL in Postgres for auto-incrementing primary keys. Both achieve similar results, but Postgres's SERIAL is more concise and adheres closer to SQL standards.

Postgres also offers more advanced features like inheritance, which MySQL doesn't support:

CREATE TABLE cities (
  name text,
  population real,
  elevation int
);

CREATE TABLE capitals (
  state char(2)
) INHERITS (cities);

This inheritance feature allows for more flexible and powerful database designs in Postgres.

Pros of CockroachDB

• Designed for horizontal scalability and distributed architecture
• Strong consistency and survivability in case of node failures
• Built-in support for geo-partitioning and multi-region deployments

Cons of CockroachDB

• Higher resource consumption, especially for smaller datasets
• Less mature ecosystem and community support
• Steeper learning curve for developers familiar with traditional RDBMSs

Code Comparison

MySQL:

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

CockroachDB:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(),
  name STRING,
  created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT current_timestamp()
);

The main differences in the code examples are:

1. CockroachDB uses UUID as the primary key type instead of INT
2. CockroachDB uses STRING instead of VARCHAR for text data
3. The function for generating UUIDs is different (gen_random_uuid() vs AUTO_INCREMENT)

Both databases support SQL, but CockroachDB has some syntax differences and additional features tailored for distributed systems. While MySQL is a well-established solution for traditional relational database needs, CockroachDB offers advantages in scalability and distributed deployments at the cost of increased complexity and resource usage.

Pros of TiDB

• Horizontally scalable, designed for distributed environments
• Built-in support for HTAP (Hybrid Transactional/Analytical Processing)
• Compatible with MySQL protocol, easier migration for existing MySQL users

Cons of TiDB

• Potentially higher resource requirements for small-scale deployments
• Steeper learning curve for administration and optimization
• Less mature ecosystem compared to MySQL

Code Comparison

MySQL:

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

TiDB:

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

The basic SQL syntax for creating tables is identical in both MySQL and TiDB, showcasing TiDB's MySQL compatibility. However, TiDB offers additional features for distributed scenarios:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT,
  name VARCHAR(255),
  created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
  PRIMARY KEY (id, name) CLUSTERED
) PARTITION BY HASH(name) PARTITIONS 4;

This TiDB example demonstrates partitioning and clustering capabilities, which are particularly useful in distributed environments.

Pros of Vitess

• Designed for horizontal scaling and sharding of MySQL databases
• Provides improved performance and availability for large-scale deployments
• Offers built-in features for load balancing and failover

Cons of Vitess

• Higher complexity and learning curve compared to vanilla MySQL
• May introduce additional latency due to the proxy layer
• Limited support for certain MySQL features and syntax

Code Comparison

MySQL Server:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY,
  name VARCHAR(50),
  email VARCHAR(100)
);

Vitess:

CREATE TABLE users (
  id INT,
  name VARCHAR(50),
  email VARCHAR(100),
  PRIMARY KEY (id)
) VITESS_SHARDED;

The main difference in the code example is the addition of VITESS_SHARDED in the Vitess version, which indicates that the table should be sharded across multiple MySQL instances. This demonstrates Vitess's focus on horizontal scaling and sharding capabilities.

Vitess builds upon MySQL, extending its functionality for large-scale deployments. While it offers significant advantages for scalability and management of distributed databases, it also introduces additional complexity and potential limitations. The choice between MySQL Server and Vitess depends on the specific requirements of the project, particularly in terms of scale and performance needs.

Pros of CouchDB

• Document-oriented NoSQL database, offering flexible schema design
• Built-in support for multi-master replication and offline-first applications
• RESTful HTTP/JSON API for easy integration with web applications

Cons of CouchDB

• Generally slower performance for complex queries compared to MySQL
• Less widespread adoption and community support
• Limited support for complex transactions and joins

Code Comparison

MySQL (SQL-based query):

SELECT * FROM users
WHERE age > 18 AND country = 'USA'
ORDER BY last_name ASC
LIMIT 10;

CouchDB (JavaScript-based view):

function(doc) {
  if (doc.type === 'user' && doc.age > 18 && doc.country === 'USA') {
    emit(doc.last_name, doc);
  }
}

Summary

MySQL is a traditional relational database with strong ACID compliance and widespread adoption. CouchDB offers flexibility for document-based data and excels in distributed environments. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements, such as data structure, scalability needs, and application architecture.