Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Citus vs Microsoft SQL Server vs Oracle: What are the differences?
# Introduction
In this comparison, we will highlight key differences between Citus, Microsoft SQL Server, and Oracle.
1. **Scalability**: Citus is explicitly designed for scaling out PostgreSQL databases horizontally across multiple nodes, allowing for improved performance with large datasets. Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle also support scalability options, but Citus is specifically tailored for this purpose.
2. **Data Distribution**: Citus automatically distributes data across nodes based on a specified distribution column, whereas Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle require manual partitioning and distribution strategies to achieve similar results.
3. **Query Parallelism**: Citus utilizes parallel query processing techniques to execute queries across distributed nodes, resulting in faster query performance compared to Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle, which may not leverage parallel processing as effectively.
4. **Sharding Strategies**: Citus offers built-in sharding functionality to distribute data across nodes using hash-based or range-based sharding strategies, simplifying the process of sharding data compared to the more manual approaches required by Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle.
5. **Cost**: While Citus is open source and offers a community edition for free, Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle are commercial products that require licensing fees, making Citus a more cost-effective option for those looking to scale their databases without significant financial investment.
In Summary, Citus stands out for its scalability, data distribution, query parallelism, sharding strategies, and cost-effective pricing model compared to Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle.
I am a Microsoft SQL Server programmer who is a bit out of practice. I have been asked to assist on a new project. The overall purpose is to organize a large number of recordings so that they can be searched. I have an enormous music library but my songs are several hours long. I need to include things like time, date and location of the recording. I don't have a problem with the general database design. I have two primary questions:
- I need to use either MySQL or PostgreSQL on a Linux based OS. Which would be better for this application?
- I have not dealt with a sound based data type before. How do I store that and put it in a table? Thank you.
Hi Erin,
Honestly both databases will do the job just fine. I personally prefer Postgres.
Much more important is how you store the audio. While you could technically use a blob type column, it's really not ideal to be storing audio files which are "several hours long" in a database row. Instead consider storing the audio files in an object store (hosted options include backblaze b2 or aws s3) and persisting the key (which references that object) in your database column.
Hi Erin, Chances are you would want to store the files in a blob type. Both MySQL and Postgres support this. Can you explain a little more about your need to store the files in the database? I may be more effective to store the files on a file system or something like S3. To answer your qustion based on what you are descibing I would slighly lean towards PostgreSQL since it tends to be a little better on the data warehousing side.
Hey Erin! I would recommend checking out Directus before you start work on building your own app for them. I just stumbled upon it, and so far extremely happy with the functionalities. If your client is just looking for a simple web app for their own data, then Directus may be a great option. It offers "database mirroring", so that you can connect it to any database and set up functionality around it!
Hi Erin! First of all, you'd probably want to go with a managed service. Don't spin up your own MySQL installation on your own Linux box. If you are on AWS, thet have different offerings for database services. Standard RDS vs. Aurora. Aurora would be my preferred choice given the benefits it offers, storage optimizations it comes with... etc. Such managed services easily allow you to apply new security patches and upgrades, set up backups, replication... etc. Doing this on your own would either be risky, inefficient, or you might just give up. As far as which database to chose, you'll have the choice between Postgresql, MySQL, Maria DB, SQL Server... etc. I personally would recommend MySQL (latest version available), as the official tooling for it (MySQL Workbench) is great, stable, and moreover free. Other database services exist, I'd recommend you also explore Dynamo DB.
Regardless, you'd certainly only keep high-level records, meta data in Database, and the actual files, most-likely in S3, so that you can keep all options open in terms of what you'll do with them.
Hi Erin,
- Coming from "Big" DB engines, such as Oracle or MSSQL, go for PostgreSQL. You'll get all the features you need with PostgreSQL.
- Your case seems to point to a "NoSQL" or Document Database use case. Since you get covered on this with PostgreSQL which achieves excellent performances on JSON based objects, this is a second reason to choose PostgreSQL. MongoDB might be an excellent option as well if you need "sharding" and excellent map-reduce mechanisms for very massive data sets. You really should investigate the NoSQL option for your use case.
- Starting with AWS Aurora is an excellent advise. since "vendor lock-in" is limited, but I did not check for JSON based object / NoSQL features.
- If you stick to Linux server, the PostgreSQL or MySQL provided with your distribution are straightforward to install (i.e. apt install postgresql). For PostgreSQL, make sure you're comfortable with the pg_hba.conf, especially for IP restrictions & accesses.
Regards,
I recommend Postgres as well. Superior performance overall and a more robust architecture.
We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL-as-a-Service that the users can deploy in any Cloud without concerns from our website at some standard cost. With Oracle Database, developers would have to worry about what they implement and the related costs of each feature but the licensing model from Tibero is just 1 price and we have all features included, so we don't have to worry and developers using our SQLaaS neither. PostgreSQL would be open source. We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL that you can deploy in any Cloud without concerns. PostgreSQL would be the open source option but we need to offer an SQLaaS with encryption and more enterprise features in the background and best value option we have found, it was Tibero Database for PL/SQL-based applications.
We wanted a JSON datastore that could save the state of our bioinformatics visualizations without destructive normalization. As a leading NoSQL data storage technology, MongoDB has been a perfect fit for our needs. Plus it's open source, and has an enterprise SLA scale-out path, with support of hosted solutions like Atlas. Mongo has been an absolute champ. So much so that SQL and Oracle have begun shipping JSON column types as a new feature for their databases. And when Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) announced support for JSON, we basically had our FHIR datalake technology.
In the field of bioinformatics, we regularly work with hierarchical and unstructured document data. Unstructured text data from PDFs, image data from radiographs, phylogenetic trees and cladograms, network graphs, streaming ECG data... none of it fits into a traditional SQL database particularly well. As such, we prefer to use document oriented databases.
MongoDB is probably the oldest component in our stack besides Javascript, having been in it for over 5 years. At the time, we were looking for a technology that could simply cache our data visualization state (stored in JSON) in a database as-is without any destructive normalization. MongoDB was the perfect tool; and has been exceeding expectations ever since.
Trivia fact: some of the earliest electronic medical records (EMRs) used a document oriented database called MUMPS as early as the 1960s, prior to the invention of SQL. MUMPS is still in use today in systems like Epic and VistA, and stores upwards of 40% of all medical records at hospitals. So, we saw MongoDB as something as a 21st century version of the MUMPS database.
Pros of Citus
- Multi-core Parallel Processing6
- Drop-in PostgreSQL replacement3
- Distributed with Auto-Sharding2
Pros of Microsoft SQL Server
- Reliable and easy to use139
- High performance101
- Great with .net95
- Works well with .net65
- Easy to maintain56
- Azure support21
- Full Index Support17
- Always on17
- Enterprise manager is fantastic10
- In-Memory OLTP Engine9
- Security is forefront2
- Easy to setup and configure2
- Docker Delivery1
- Columnstore indexes1
- Great documentation1
- Faster Than Oracle1
- Decent management tools1
Pros of Oracle
- Reliable44
- Enterprise33
- High Availability15
- Hard to maintain5
- Expensive5
- Maintainable4
- Hard to use4
- High complexity3
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Citus
Cons of Microsoft SQL Server
- Expensive Licensing4
- Microsoft2
Cons of Oracle
- Expensive14
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Citus?
What is Microsoft SQL Server?
What is Oracle?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Microsoft SQL Server?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Microsoft SQL Server?
What tools integrate with Oracle?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+13