can you imagine 20 years ago someone complaining that google wasn't safe for work because it had a silly name?
newsflash dummy: stop saying/thinking/repeating stupid things like this and it'll stop being the case that everyone is so conservative that silly names are inadmissible.
Why limit the adoption for no good reason by choosing a weird name intentionally?
Good attributes for a DB though?
1) >631851 tpmC
How many servers are needed to achieve this throughput?
2) >4 terabytes of unreplicated, frequently accessed data
4TB unreplicated data? Does that mean if a single node goes down you'll lose data (EDIT: I meant losing availability, not data)? That kinda ruins the whole point of having a distributed database.
3) If I'm reading the KV benchmaks correctly, it takes 5 nodes to achieve 100k tpm. That's 20k tpm per node. That's 333 tps per node. This is a 95% point read benchmark. Why is the tps (333 tps) so low? Is that normal?
4) How does CockroachDB compare to other distributed databases such as TiDB, FoundationDB, ScyllaDB?
TiDB is interesting, but missing more features from MySQL than CRDB is missing from PostgreSQL, so it's effective if you want sharding on mysql but will need a few more releases before it gets polished. Vitess and Citus are good options if you just want sharding on top of existing mysql or postgres with full query support within a shard. There's also Yugabyte which is multi-modal Redis/Cassandra/SQL offering with multi-regional capabilities.
CRDB is a great product with some of the easiest operations (although key management is a nightmare that they do not have a good plan for). It's fast enough for point-lookups and makes it easy to distribute and replicate your data across zones and regions. All nodes are part of a single cluster so read and write latencies will be high for global deployment, with the enterprise version having a workaround for local regional reads using pinned covering indexes. That works, but further lowers write performance.
It also has trouble with large transactions and the middle ground between OLTP and OLAP with heavy joins. Good choice if you need easy scalability and SQL interface over performance and complex queries.
The gap of features missing is documented here: https://www.pingcap.com/docs/sql/mysql-compatibility/
I would rate compatibility as actually pretty good: all but one SQL mode is supported (which is a feat in itself), and most of the SQL functions are supported.
There are some exceptions though, some which are addressable (missing functions) and some that are not (often a property of being an optimistic system).
We try to be as transparent as possible on this, which might be part of the reason why you feel there is a lot missing?
If you have specific examples, I would be happy to clarify. We also have a course designed for MySQL DBAs, which is designed to make the adoption easier: https://www.pingcap.com/tidb-academy
1. Between 90 and 135 16 vCPU nodes depending on cloud hardware 2. The cluster replicates this data three ways across all three nodes (so the cluster actually contains 12+tb of data) ensuring high availability. We intentionally reported the unreplicated number for clarity and comparison to TPC-C spec 3. Our graph is mislabeled. It should read transactions per second `tps`. Nice catch! 4. We can't comment on other database performance as they haven't release any TPC-C numbers.
1. Is there a managed service of this db where it auto scales, does geo replication etc all by itself?
2. Is there any really good book on cockroachdb?
Not sure that there any books on it yet.