CockroachDB

YugabyteDB’s sharding, replication and transactions architecture is similar to that CockroachDB given that both are inspired by the Google Spanner design paper . Additionally, both use Raft as the distributed consensus replication algorithm and RocksDB as the per-node storage engine. The following sections highlight the advantages and similarities YugabyteDB has when compared with CockroachDB.

Advantages

YugabyteDB beats CockroachDB in the context of multiple developer benefits including higher performance, stronger fit for internet-scale OLTP workloads, better PostgreSQL compatibility as well as higher data density. Following blogs highlight the architectural and implementation advantages that make these benefits possible.

• YugabyteDB vs CockroachDB Performance Benchmarks for Internet-Scale Transactional Workloads

• Distributed PostgreSQL on a Google Spanner Architecture – Storage Layer

• Distributed PostgreSQL on a Google Spanner Architecture – Query Layer

• Yes We Can! Distributed ACID Transactions with High Performance

• Enhancing RocksDB for Speed & Scale

Similarities

Following blogs highlight how YugabyteDB works as an open source, cloud native Spanner derivative similar to CockroachDB.

• Rise of Globally Distributed SQL Databases – Redefining Transactional Stores for Cloud Native Era

• Implementing Distributed Transactions the Google Way: Percolator vs. Spanner

• Google Spanner vs. Calvin: Is There a Clear Winner in the Battle for Global Consistency at Scale?

• Docker, Kubernetes and the Rise of Cloud Native Databases

• Practical Tradeoffs in Google Cloud Spanner, Azure Cosmos DB and YugabyteDB

Download benchmarking report

Download our comprehensive report that benchmarks YugabyteDB against CockroachDB while highlighting the architectural choices that enables YugabyteDB to have 3.5x better throughput and 3x lower latency.