CockroachDB vs MSSQL: What are the differences?
# Introduction
The following points highlight the key differences between CockroachDB and MSSQL.
1. **ACID Compliance**: CockroachDB is fully ACID compliant, ensuring that transactions are atomic, consistent, isolated, and durable. On the other hand, while MSSQL also offers strong ACID compliance, it may require additional configuration for certain features to meet all ACID criteria.
2. **Partition Tolerance**: CockroachDB is designed with partition tolerance in mind, allowing it to continue operating even if some nodes are unreachable or fail. In contrast, MSSQL may struggle with maintaining availability in the presence of network partitions or node failures.
3. **Scalability**: CockroachDB is known for its linear scalability, meaning that as more nodes are added to the cluster, performance improves proportionally. MSSQL, while able to scale vertically with more powerful hardware, may face limitations in horizontally scaling across multiple nodes.
4. **Consistency Model**: CockroachDB utilizes a distributed, strongly-consistent data model, ensuring that data remains consistent across all nodes in the cluster. MSSQL, in some scenarios, may employ eventual consistency, where data consistency is guaranteed only after a certain period.
5. **Concurrency Control**: CockroachDB employs a sophisticated concurrency control mechanism that allows for high levels of concurrency without sacrificing data integrity. While MSSQL also provides concurrency control mechanisms, CockroachDB's approach may be more efficient in high-concurrency environments.
6. **Multi-Cloud Support**: CockroachDB offers native support for multi-cloud deployments, allowing for data distribution and redundancy across different cloud providers. In comparison, MSSQL may require third-party solutions to facilitate multi-cloud deployments.
In Summary, CockroachDB and MSSQL differ in terms of ACID compliance, partition tolerance, scalability, consistency model, concurrency control, and multi-cloud support.