CnosDB vs InfluxDB
CnosDB 2.4.1 vs InfluxDB 1.8.10
Comparative performance testing between CnosDB 2.4.1 and InfluxDB 1.8.10 has been conducted, below are the test conclusions and test details.
Conclusion
Under the same data conditions, test results show that the query performance of CnosDB and InfluxDB have their own advantages and disadvantages.
Pre-test
1. Test Environment Preparedness
CPU：64 CPUs x Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5218 CPU @ 2.30GHz
Memory: 256 GB
Disk: SSD NVMe Protocol
2. Test case preparation
Install the corresponding machine's db environment, go environment, etc. in advance to ensure that you can connect properly.
Install CnosDB:
Refer to the deployment document: Install CnosDB
Test InfluxDB writes
Reference: [InfluxDB 1.8.10] (https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb)
3) Configuration Check & Modify
CnosDB and InfluxDB only modified the storage folder paths for Data, Wal, and Meta, while keeping the rest as default. This will not be repeated here.
4. Dataset preparation
| Usage | Determine the PRNG-seed | Number of devices to generate | Start timestamp | End timestamp | Interval between readings per device | Target database | Data Size | Rows |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| iot | 123 | 100 | 2020-01-01T00:00:00Z | 2021-01-01T00:00:00Z | 6.3s | CnosDB/InfluxDB | 201G | 450,721,871 |
Test Results
| SQL | CnosDB 2.4.1 | InfluxDB 1.8.10 |
|---|---|---|
| Count: select count(elevation) from readings | 2.88s | 2.09s |
| Aggregate: select count(latitude), max(latitude), min(latitude) from readings | 3.2s | 4.95s |
| Tag filter: select count(latitude), max(latitude), min(latitude) from readings where fleet = 'East' | 1.75s | 2.67s |
| Tag group: select count(latitude), max(latitude), min(latitude) from readings group by driver | 6.11s | 6.15s |