In this blog post, we will explore the primary key differences between colocated and non-colocated databases/tables and then dive into the syntax implications of primary key usage on colocated and non-colocated tables/databases.
In this excerpt from the recent white paper, Migrating From Monolithic to Cloud Native Operational Databases, we look at three of the challenges faced by companies using the current generation of NoSQL databases and why distributed SQL may be a better choice.
In an earlier blog, we broke down the definition of geo-distributed apps. So now let’s compare and contrast geo-distributed apps those apps that are deployed within a single data center or availability zone. A good way to make this comparison to understand the differences and find the similarities is to drill down into the architecture.
It’s a common misconception that NewSQL and distributed SQL databases are the same. They’re not. Even though they’re both an evolution in the transactional database, there are significant differences. Distributed SQL adoption is growing because companies face new challenges that cannot be easily addressed with NoSQL, SQL, or NewSQL databases. Let’s look at five of them.
Earlier this week, Yugabyte CTO Karthik Ranganathan presented the live webinar: Evaluating CockroachDB vs YugabyteDB, with a spotlight on comparing PostgreSQL features, architecture, and the latest performance benchmarks between the two databases. We were delighted to see such interest in the topic, dive deeper into some of the topics we raised in parts 1 and parts 2 of the blog series, Bringing Truth to Competitive Benchmark Claims – YugabyteDB vs CockroachDB, and answer questions from the audience.
…
This post explores the compatibility of YugabyteDB with Oracle and PostgreSQL by examining 15 different Oracle features and their PostgreSQL equivalents highlighted in Roland Takacs’ blog post “Oracle vs PostgreSQL: First Glance.” As a PostgreSQL-compatible distributed SQL database, YugabyteDB offers a broad range of SQL features, making it an interesting choice for those looking to migrate from Oracle to a modern tech stack.
In part 1 of this blog series, we highlighted multiple factual errors in the Cockroach Labs analysis of YugabyteDB. In this second post we provide the next layer of detail behind YugabyteDB’s architecture, with an emphasis on comparing it to that of CockroachDB’s.
Yugabyte SQL is based on a reuse of PostgreSQL’s native query layer.
…
In this post, we compare distributed SQL databases against NewSQL databases to better understand their differences and know when you should use either.
In the first post of our series comparing YugabyteDB with PostgreSQL and MongoDB, we mapped the core concepts in YugabyteDB to the two popular databases. This post is a deeper dive into the high availability and transactions architecture of these databases.
FoundationDB enjoys a unique spot in the transactional NoSQL space given its positioning as a basic key-value database that can be used to build new, more application-friendly databases. Given that many of the guarantees provided by its core engine (such as multi-shard ACID transactions and high fault tolerance) are similar to those provided by the YugabyteDB database, our users often ask us for a comparison. These users are essentially trying to understand whether they should build their app directly using one of the three YugabyteDB APIs or should they explore/build a new database layer on FoundationDB first.
…