PostgreSQL (alternately Postgres) is a free and open source object-relational database system boasting over 30 years of active development, reliability, feature robustness, and performance. It supports SQL and is designed to support various workloads flexibly.
N/A
SAP HANA Cloud
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
SAP HANA is an application that uses in-memory database technology to process very large amounts of real-time data from relational databases, both SAP and non-SAP, in a very short time. The in-memory computing engine allows HANA to process data stored in RAM as opposed to reading it from a disk which means that the data can be accessed in real time by the applications using HANA. The product is sold both as an appliance and as a cloud-based software solution.
Four years ago, I needed to choose a web-scale database. Having used relational databases for years (PostgreSQL is my favorite), I needed something that could perform well at scale with no downtime. I considered VoltDB for its in-memory speed, but it's limited in scale. I …
DynamoDB is good and is also a truly global database as a service on AWS. However, if your organization is not using AWS, then Cassandra will provide a highly scalable and tuneable, consistent database. Cassandra is also fault-tolerant and good for replication across multiple …
Cassandra is the only NoSQL database I have extensive experience with. In terms of other open source database solutions, I can say that I like Cassandra as much or equally as traditional Oracle MySQL, and a lot more than PostgresSQL. The decision to use Cassandra was driven by …
In my experience using all of these products over many years, PostgreSQL is better than any of them in reliability, performance, productivity, cost, scalability and interoperability across operating systems.
PostgrPostgreSQL as a transaction db engine against oracle and sql server works well. TPM wise compared to MySQL and MariaDB, on an evan scale. SQL function supports, far outweighs compared to MySQL and MariaDB. PG Extensions allow for flexibiltity and scalability. Allows …
As I have been telling all along, PostgreSQL is much cheaper compared to the other RDBMS solutions. It has got better performance with some of the application services that we are using and is easy to maintain. Overall, we are satisfied migrating to PostgreSQL database clusters.
It's a viable alternative, with a rich feature set and a reliable system. PostgreSQL is one of the best RDBMS's currently on the market in 2020, it serves just as well as a starter, PoC DB for any software idea as a final, highly valuable database solution for big systems.
We were using PostgreSQL prior to SAP HANA. The biggest difference that is noticed from an end-user standpoint is the speed with which database transactions take place. Because of the growing scale of our application, we really needed something faster. PostgreSQL just wasn’t …
As discussed earlier, SAP HANA is one of its kind. With SAP HANA, we are much better equipped to handle and go even beyond the big data trend. Its machine learning and advanced analytic capabilities allow us to integrate with many external and internal resources. [Another] …
There are many alternatives to SAP HANA if we consider functionality. Most of them, just like HANA, have their own niche place of specialization. But SAP HANA is at the forefront when it comes to performance comparison in its area of expertise which is business intelligence and …
Apache Cassandra is a NoSQL database and well suited where you need highly available, linearly scalable, tunable consistency and high performance across varying workloads. It has worked well for our use cases, and I shared my experiences to use it effectively at the last Cassandra summit! http://bit.ly/1Ok56TK It is a NoSQL database, finally you can tune it to be strongly consistent and successfully use it as such. However those are not usual patterns, as you negotiate on latency. It works well if you require that. If your use case needs strongly consistent environments with semantics of a relational database or if the use case needs a data warehouse, or if you need NoSQL with ACID transactions, Apache Cassandra may not be the optimum choice.
PostgreSQL is best used for structured data, and best when following relational database design principles. I would not use PostgreSQL for large unstructured data such as video, images, sound files, xml documents, web-pages, especially if these files have their own highly variable, internal structure.
I think if you have a large organization, it's probably the product and the marketplace to go to. We're a large management consulting firm operating in four to seven countries. And generally speaking, I think that's the size and the scope where it scales best. I can't speak to smaller companies, but I can't see smaller companies leveraging the benefits as much as a larger organization can.
Continuous availability: as a fully distributed database (no master nodes), we can update nodes with rolling restarts and accommodate minor outages without impacting our customer services.
Linear scalability: for every unit of compute that you add, you get an equivalent unit of capacity. The same application can scale from a single developer's laptop to a web-scale service with billions of rows in a table.
Amazing performance: if you design your data model correctly, bearing in mind the queries you need to answer, you can get answers in milliseconds.
Time-series data: Cassandra excels at recording, processing, and retrieving time-series data. It's a simple matter to version everything and simply record what happens, rather than going back and editing things. Then, you can compute things from the recorded history.
Real-time reporting and analytics on data: because of its in-memory architecture, it is perfect for businesses that need to make quick decisions based on current information.
Managing workload with complex data: it can handle a vast range of data types, including relational, documental, geospatial, graph, vector, and time series data.
Developing and deploying intelligent data applications: it provides various tools for such applications and can be used for machine learning and artificial intelligence to automate tasks, gain insights from data, and make predictions.
Cassandra runs on the JVM and therefor may require a lot of GC tuning for read/write intensive applications.
Requires manual periodic maintenance - for example it is recommended to run a cleanup on a regular basis.
There are a lot of knobs and buttons to configure the system. For many cases the default configuration will be sufficient, but if its not - you will need significant ramp up on the inner workings of Cassandra in order to effectively tune it.
Requires higher processing power, otherwise it won't fly. How ever computing costs are lower. Incase you are migrating to cloud please do not select the highest config available in that series . Upgrading it later against a reserved instance can cost you dearly with a series change
Lack of clarity on licensing is one major challenge
Unless S/4 with additional features are enabled mere migration HANA DB is not a rewarding journey. Power is in S/4
I would recommend Cassandra DB to those who know their use case very well, as well as know how they are going to store and retrieve data. If you need a guarantee in data storage and retrieval, and a DB that can be linearly grown by adding nodes across availability zones and regions, then this is the database you should choose.
We would rate our likelihood of renewing at 9/10. SAP HANA Cloud has proven to be a highly reliable and scalable data platform that consistently delivers strong performance. Its seamless integration with our overall SAP landscape, combined with improved analytics and real-time data capabilities, makes it a core part of our long-term technology strategy.
Postgresql is the best tool out there for relational data so I have to give it a high rating when it comes to analytics, data availability and consistency, so on and so forth. SQL is also a relatively consistent language so when it comes to building new tables and loading data in from the OLTP database, there are enough tools where we can perform ETL on a scalable basis.
It is useful solution which helps you improve SAP applications performance. It offers you faster data processing, robust disaster management, higher availability, scalability, advanced analytical capabilities, etc. It provides you simple, clean, organized user interface designed to facilitate smooth navigation. Its user interface is simple and intuitive which allow you to complete task efficiently.
The data queries are relatively quick for a small to medium sized table. With complex joins, and a wide and deep table however, the performance of the query has room for improvement.
There are several companies that you can contract for technical support, like EnterpriseDB or Percona, both first level in expertise and commitment to the software.
But we do not have contracts with them, we have done all the way from googling to forums, and never have a problem that we cannot resolve or pass around. And for dozens of projects and more than 15 years now.
However, I am not the right person to answer this as we have another department to handle support and contact the service provider for any support required. Although i will say that they are the quick respondent and knows how to handle querry of the customers and provide quick and better support.
The online training is request based. Had there been recorded videos available online for potential users to benefit from, I could have rated it higher. The online documentation however is very helpful. The online documentation PDF is downloadable and allows users to pace their own learning. With examples and code snippets, the documentation is great starting point.
Professional GIS people are some of the most risk-averse there are, and it's difficult to get them to move to HANA in one step. Start with small projects building to 80% use of HANA spatial over time.
We evaluated MongoDB also, but don't like the single point failure possibility. The HBase coupled us too tightly to the Hadoop world while we prefer more technical flexibility. Also HBase is designed for "cold"/old historical data lake use cases and is not typically used for web and mobile applications due to its performance concern. Cassandra, by contrast, offers the availability and performance necessary for developing highly available applications. Furthermore, the Hadoop technology stack is typically deployed in a single location, while in the big international enterprise context, we demand the feasibility for deployment across countries and continents, hence finally we are favor of Cassandra
Although the competition between the different databases is increasingly aggressive in the sense that they provide many improvements, new functionalities, compatibility with complementary components or environments, in some cases it requires that it be followed within the same family of applications that performs the company that develops it and that is not all bad, but being able to adapt or configure different programs, applications or other environments developed by third parties apart is what gives PostgreSQL a certain advantage and this diversification in the components that can be joined with it, is the reason why it is a great option to choose.
I have deep knowledge of other disk based DBMSs. They are venerable technology, but the attempts to extend them to current architectures belie the fact they are built on 40 year old technology. There are some good columnar in-memory databases but they lack the completeness of capability present in the HANA platform.
I have no experience with this but from the blogs and news what I believe is that in businesses where there is high demand for scalability, Cassandra is a good choice to go for.
Since it works on CQL, it is quite familiar with SQL in understanding therefore it does not prevent a new employee to start in learning and having the Cassandra experience at an industrial level.
Easy to administer so our DevOps team has only ever used minimal time to setup, tune, and maintain.
Easy to interface with so our Engineering team has only ever used minimal time to query or modify the database. Getting the data is straightforward, what we do with it is the bigger concern.