Menu
When people are comparing SQL and noSQL, and concluding the upsides and downsides of each one, what I never hear anyone talking about is the speed.
Isn't performing SQL queries generally faster than performing noSQL queries?
I mean, for me this would be a really obvious conclusion, because you should always be able to find something faster if you know the structure of your database than if you don't.
But people never seem to mention this, so I want to know if my conclusion is right or wrong.
963
MongoDB offers faster query processing but with an increased load and system requirements. Without knowing the purpose of use, it is not possible to classify SQL Databases or NoSQL Databases like MongoDB as better or worse than the other. There are various factors that drive the MongoDB vs SQL decision.
'NoSQL' (or more precisely: non-relational) databases give up some features of the traditional databases for speed, but more importantly for horizontal scalability. The missing features depend on the concrete product, in general full ACID properties or even join operations are not supported.
Some operations are faster in NoSQL than relational databases like MySQL. Data structures used by NoSQL databases can also be viewed as more flexible and scalable than relational databases.
ScyllaDB is the Monstrously Fast + Scalable NoSQL Database.
People who tend to use noSQL use it specifically because it fits their use cases. Being divorced from normal RDBMS table relationships and constraints, as well as ACID-ity of data, it's very easy to make it run a lot faster.
Consider Twitter, which uses NoSQL because a user only does very limited things on site, or one exactly - tweet. And concurrency can be considered non-existent since (1) nobody else can modify your tweet and (2) you won't normally be simultaneously tweeting from multiple devices.
59
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
