4.3 Article

MongoDB Vs PostgreSQL: A comparative study on performance aspects

期刊

GEOINFORMATICA
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 243-268

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10707-020-00407-w

关键词

Spatiotemporal analysis; Performance evaluation; Spatiotemporal data; AIS

资金

  1. MASTER Project through the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie-Slodowska Curie [777695]
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie SlodowskaCurie grant [823916]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modern problems involving large amounts of spatio-temporal data require efficient data storage systems. The study compared MongoDB and PostgreSQL and found that PostgreSQL is generally more effective in meeting the needs of industrial applications, except for polygon intersection queries. The use of indexes significantly reduces average response times, especially in MongoDB.
Several modern day problems need to deal with large amounts of spatio-temporal data. As such, in order to meet the application requirements, more and more systems are adapting to the specificities of those data. The most prominent case is perhaps the data storage systems, that have developed a large number of functionalities to efficiently support spatio-temporal data operations. This work is motivated by the question of which of those data storage systems is better suited to address the needs of industrial applications. In particular, the work conducted, set to identify the most efficient data store system in terms of response times, comparing two of the most representative of the two categories (NoSQL and relational), i.e. MongoDB and PostgreSQL. The evaluation is based upon real, business scenarios and their subsequent queries as well as their underlying infrastructures and concludes in confirming the superiority of PostgreSQL in almost all cases with the exception of the polygon intersection queries. Furthermore, the average response time is radically reduced with the use of indexes, especially in the case of MongoDB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据