![]() ArangoDB tries to be a true graph database as well as a document database. FaunaDB is an OLTP relational indexed document database with some graph-like features and temporal aspects. Our references are very similar to index-free adjacency and FQL makes the tree-walking type of queries very efficient (e.g. In that sense, FaunaDB is not a true Graph database but it has similar features. FaunaDB has graph-like features but is not built to do queries like: “give me each connection of person X, and that connection should be between 1 and 3 hops”. Multi-model: both are multi-model but ArangoDB profiles itself much more as a Graph database. You can write to any node and another node that executes a query that requires this data will be able to read it as soon as the transaction is confirmed. FaunaDB is truly multi-region and consistent. ArangoDB does have an async read-only replication setup to replicate data from cluster A to cluster B in one direction. When you set up an ArangoDB cluster you choose a region. Multi-region: FaunaDB is multi-region, by default. Click on New Database and expect that it’s going to scale for you is a quite different offering. FaunaDB is zero operations, you don’t care (nor have to care) about machines/memory/CPU. You are essentially setting the limits of your cluster. Managed vs Zero operations: ArangoDB Oasis talks of a managed service, where you define machine sizes, select a region, and they create the cluster for you. ![]() If we compare cluster mode since FaunaDB, atomic single document operations if a far weaker guarantee than FaunaDB’s consistency guarantees. ArangoDB provides strong consistency on a single instance and atomic operations when operating in cluster mode. Strong consistency: FaunaDB is strongly consistent across nodes, across collections, across nodes… no matter what. Objective comparison (or at least an attempt): We are comparing apples with oranges though since FaunaDB is built to operate as a distributed database and in production FaunaDB only comes as a cloud database so it makes most sense to compare it to ArangoDB Oasis. I think there is a reason for that since there are quite some differences. For ArangoDB, we didn’t plan one since until now, nobody compared us to ArangoDB. We are providing comparison guides such as the one for MongoDB where we try to be as objective as possible, soon there will be one for DynamoDB. What I’m going to write is my personal opinion though since comparing databases is incredibly hard, and we prefer not to pick fights with other databases since we believe most databases actively contribute to how the database landscape evolves. I’m obviously a FaunaDB employee, I’m not Fauna’s leadership though so I’m sorry to disappoint you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |