What users are saying about
28 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
Top Rated
45 Ratings
28 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 6.5 out of 100

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
Top Rated
45 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9 out of 100

Feature Set Ratings

    NoSQL Databases

    7.9

    CouchDB

    79%

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    Feature Set Not Supported
    N/A
    Apache CouchDB ranks higher in 7/7 features

    Performance

    8.0
    80%
    2 Ratings
    N/A
    0 Ratings

    Availability

    8.5
    85%
    2 Ratings
    N/A
    0 Ratings

    Concurrency

    8.5
    85%
    2 Ratings
    N/A
    0 Ratings

    Security

    6.0
    60%
    2 Ratings
    N/A
    0 Ratings

    Scalability

    8.0
    80%
    2 Ratings
    N/A
    0 Ratings

    Data model flexibility

    7.0
    70%
    2 Ratings
    N/A
    0 Ratings

    Deployment model flexibility

    9.0
    90%
    2 Ratings
    N/A
    0 Ratings

    Attribute Ratings

    • Apache CouchDB is rated higher in 1 area: Usability
    • SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) is rated higher in 1 area: Likelihood to Renew
    • Apache CouchDB and SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) are tied in 1 area: Likelihood to Recommend

    Likelihood to Recommend

    9.0

    CouchDB

    90%
    10 Ratings
    9.0

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    90%
    33 Ratings

    Likelihood to Renew

    9.0

    CouchDB

    90%
    9 Ratings
    10.0

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    100%
    3 Ratings

    Usability

    8.0

    CouchDB

    80%
    1 Rating
    7.6

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    76%
    6 Ratings

    Performance

    CouchDB

    N/A
    0 Ratings
    9.4

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    94%
    6 Ratings

    Support Rating

    CouchDB

    N/A
    0 Ratings
    7.7

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    77%
    6 Ratings

    Implementation Rating

    9.0

    CouchDB

    90%
    2 Ratings

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    N/A
    0 Ratings

    Likelihood to Recommend

    CouchDB

    Great for REST API development, if you want a small, fast server that will send and receive JSON structures, CouchDB is hard to beat. Not great for enterprise-level relational database querying (no kidding). While by definition, document-oriented databases are not relational, porting or migrating from relational, and using CouchDB as a backend is probably not a wise move as it's reliable, but It may not always be highly available.
    Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    SingleStore environment is easy to adapt, it is extremely fast on collecting data from different sources (AWS, GCP or Azure), provides monitoring of activities and easy use multiple databases. It is good for analytical and recommendation based scenarios, and provides fast results on complex queries. In SingleStore platform queries execution open new tab result for each run, which makes it difficult to navigate over the results.
    Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Pros

    CouchDB

    • It can replicate and sync with web browsers via PouchDB. This lets you keep a synced copy of your database on the client-side, which offers much faster data access than continuous HTTP requests would allow, and enables offline usage.
    • Simple Map/Reduce support. The M/R system lets you process terabytes of documents in parallel, save the results, and only need to reprocess documents that have changed on subsequent updates. While not as powerful as Hadoop, it is an easy to use query system that's hard to screw up.
    • Sharding and Clustering support. As of CouchDB 2.0, it supports clustering and sharding of documents between instances without needing a load balancer to determine where requests should go.
    • Master to Master replication lets you clone, continuously backup, and listen for changes through the replication protocol, even over unreliable WAN links.
    Sean Lang | TrustRadius Reviewer

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    • Return results of complex queries scanning TBs of data in sub-seconds.
    • Customer support team answer tickets quickly and provide guidance.
    • MySQL engine which allows to query using simple MySQL drivers from different clients.
    • Queries profiling is easy to use and helps investigating performance.
    Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Cons

    CouchDB

    • NoSQL DB can become a challenge for seasoned RDBMS users.
    • The map-reduce paradigm can be very demanding for first-time users.
    • JSON format documents with Key-Value pairs are somewhat verbose and consume more storage.
    Johanes Siregar | TrustRadius Reviewer

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    • We wish the product had better support for High Availability of the aggregator. Currently the indexes generated by the two different aggregators are not in the same sequential space and so our apps have more burden to deal with HA.
    • More tools for debugging issues such as high memory usage would be good.
    • The price was the one that kept us away from purchasing for the first few years. Now we are able to afford due to a promotion that gives it at 25% of the list price. Not sure if we'll continue after the promotion offer expires in another 2 years.
    Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Pricing Details

    CouchDB

    General

    Free Trial
    Free/Freemium Version
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    Entry-level set up fee?
    No

    Starting Price

    CouchDB Editions & Modules

    Additional Pricing Details

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    General

    Free Trial
    Yes
    Free/Freemium Version
    Yes
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    Yes
    Entry-level set up fee?
    Optional

    Starting Price

    $69 per hour

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) Editions & Modules

    Edition
    OnDemand0.691
    1. per hour
    Additional Pricing Details

    Likelihood to Renew

    CouchDB

    CouchDB 9.0
    Based on 9 answers
    Because our current solution S3 is working great and CouchDB was a nightmare. The worst is that at first, it seemed fine until we filled it with tons of data and then started to create views and actually delete.
    Josh Stapp | TrustRadius Reviewer

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 10.0
    Based on 3 answers
    We haven't seen a faster relation database. Period. Which is why we are super happy customers and will for sure renew our license.
    Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Usability

    CouchDB

    CouchDB 8.0
    Based on 1 answer
    Couchdb is very simple to use and the features are also reduced but well implemented. In order to use it the way its designed, the ui is adequate and easy. Of course, there are some other task that can't be performed through the admin ui but the minimalistic design allows you to use external libraries to develop custom scripts
    victor pease solano | TrustRadius Reviewer

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 7.6
    Based on 6 answers
    [Until it is] supported on AWS ECS containers, I will reserve a higher rating for SingleStore. Right now it works well on EC2 and serves our current purpose, [but] would look forward to seeing SingleStore respond to our urge of feature in a shorter time period with high quality and security.
    Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Performance

    CouchDB

    No score
    No answers yet
    No answers on this topic

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 9.4
    Based on 6 answers
    It seems good at being able to handle complex queries against large datasets out of the box. In the past, we've had to do quite a bit of manual configuration and database performance-tuning, but SingleStore (so far) has seemed to require minimal configuration in this aspect. Both data imports/exports, as well as queries against the data, run very fast.
    Ruslan Smirnov | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Support Rating

    CouchDB

    No score
    No answers yet
    No answers on this topic

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 7.7
    Based on 6 answers
    Very responsive to trouble tickets - Often, I think, the SingleStore's monitoring systems have already alerted the engineers by the time I get around to writing a ticket (about 10 - 20 mins after we see a problem). I feel like things are escalated nicely and SingleStore takes resolving trouble tickets seriously. Also SingleStore follows up after incidents to with a post mortem and actionable takaways to improve the product. Very satisfied here.
    John Barry | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Implementation Rating

    CouchDB

    CouchDB 9.0
    Based on 2 answers
    it support is minimal also hw requirements. Also for development, we can have databases replicated everywhere and the replication is automagical. once you set up the security and the rules for replication, you are ready to go. The absence of a model let you build your app the way you want it
    victor pease solano | TrustRadius Reviewer

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    No score
    No answers yet
    No answers on this topic

    Alternatives Considered

    CouchDB

    It has been 5+ years since we chose CouchDB. We looked an MongoDB, Cassandra, and probably some others. At the end of the day, the performance, power potential, and simplicity of CouchDB made it a simple choice for our needs. No one should use just because we did. As I said early, make sure you understand your problems, and find the right solution.Some random reading that might be useful:http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap-theoremhttps://www.couchbase.com/nosql-resources/why-nosql\https://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later-how-the-rules-have-changed
    Dave Lundberg | TrustRadius Reviewer

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    Vertica, Snowflake, SQL Server, Azure Data Warehouse, PowerBI, Aerospike, etc.From what I've seen MemSQL is well worth the cost when latency and data freshness needs are high, i.e. you need a lot of queries to run with UI latency (the query itself takes less than a second or so), with very fresh streaming fact and dimensional data. It will be more expensive per "unit of performance" but if you need that performance then it'll get the job done.
    • On-prem Vertica (note, not Eon) provides more knobs for optimizing a particular data set and set of queries against it and performs as well or better in a single table, fact table queries. It will also scale to data size more cheaply due to its on-disk model. For large queries against large data sets where data freshness isn't as important (and latency either is or isn't), I'd take Vertica, although if you need to do a lot of joins that will struggle). However, as they still are exclusively columnar, dimension table updates, and recalls based on them, can only be tuned to happen so fast (we could do much better than 10 seconds with 10-100 updates per second for raw replication, and Vertica's joins are always slow so recalls were worse).
    • Snowflake suffers similarly to Vertica in the data freshness, replication, and re-calc area; SF also doesn't give as many knobs to turn as Vertica for data set optimization but seems to be better at joins. If you have a lot of queries to run against a lot of data and joins are limited, you need query latency low and consistent but you don't need a ton of freshness, I'd stick with Vertica. If joins matter more, or you can accept notably-but-not-terribly worse performance, then Snowflake is fine and cheaper from what we've seen. (Again, I can't speak to SF vs Vertica Eon).
    • SQL Server and ADW we couldn't get to perform as well as the other options, but I'll say we didn't try that hard on those.
    • Aerospike is amazing as a KV store; however for OLAP use cases where you want to balance performance against the flexibility of queries against general event (time series) data (i.e. be able to roll up to different grains) then KV becomes challenging.
    • PBI is great if you want an integrated BI tool, but if you want an OLAP solution to build against, with some particular scale or performance needs to be mentioned above, I'd go with one of these other solutions. It really can be great for letting non-tech folks build relatively small data sets and quick insights for customers (internal or external), great leverage in that case.
    Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Return on Investment

    CouchDB

    • It has saved us hours and hours of coding.
    • It is has taught us a new way to look at things.
    • It has taught us patience as the first few weeks with CouchDB were not pleasant. It was not easy to pick up like MongoDB.
    LeVar Berry | TrustRadius Reviewer

    SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

    • As the overall performance and functionality were expanded, we are able to deliver our data much faster than before, which increases the demand for data.
    • Metadata is available in the platform by default, like metadata on the pipelines. Also, the information schema has lots of metadata, making it easy to load our assets to the data catalog.
    Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

    Screenshots

    Add comparison