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 for large data sizes, better PostgreSQL compatibility, more flexible geo-distributed deployment options as well as higher data density. Following blogs highlight the architectural and implementation advantages that make these benefits possible.

• Bringing Truth to Competitive Benchmark Claims – YugabyteDB vs CockroachDB, Part 2 

• 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 

Join webinar

Join the upcoming live webinar  to review the comprehensive report that benchmarks YugabyteDB against CockroachDB while highlighting the architectural choices that enables YugabyteDB to have 3x higher throughput and 4.5x lower latency.