SQL and NoSQL Database Comparison

From Performance Perspective in Supporting Semi-structured Data
  • Ming-Li Emily Chang
  • Hui Na Chua
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 886)


In this digital era, social media web applications have churned out huge amount of unstructured data each day. These social media data may be processed into meaningful data through text analytics. With the rapid growth of the volume of unstructured data produced daily, NoSQL database is increasingly popular that it has become the chosen database to store data. However, little research is done on the comparison of SQL and NoSQL in terms of indexing, performance tuning, and amount of records supported. This paper aims to provide a thorough comparative evaluation of MongoDB and MySQL, a tool for SQL and NoSQL databases, respectively, in terms of their performance in populating and retrieving big data after performance tuning. The findings presented in this paper give a new insight from the aspect of how these databases support semi-structured social media data by considering the options of performance tuning. The methodology for this research consists of four performance measurements, namely, insert, select, update, and delete up to 1 million Twitter data stored, to evaluate SQL and NoSQL databases. Our result findings indicate that MongoDB does perform faster for all the four operations. However, there are more performance tuning options provided by MySQL for more flexible performance optimization.


Database management systems Semi-structured data model NoSQL Big data Twitter data streaming 


  1. 1.
    Pervasive Software Inc. 2003. Harvesting Unstructured Data, p. 2Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaur, M.: Malaysians spend 12 hours daily on phone and online. [Online]. New Straits Times (2015). Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  3. 3.
    Arasu, A., Garcia-Molina, H.: Extracting structured data from web pages. In: SIGMOD 2003: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (2003). Accessed 20 Aug 2017Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sucio, D.: Encyclopedia of Database Systems: Semi-Structured Data Model, p. 144. Springer, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zoulfaghari, R.: SQL server versions in distribution, parallelism and big data. Int. J. Comput. Appl. (0975–8887) 148(14), 1 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta, S., Narsimha.: Performance evaluation of NoSQL – cassandra over relational data store – MYSQL for bigdata. Int. J. Technol. 2015 6, 640 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dubois, P., et al.: MySQL 5.0 Certification Study Guide, p. 541 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chodorow, K., Dirolf, M.: MongoDB: The Definitive Guide, p. 7 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damodaran, D., et al.: Performance Evaluation Of Mysql And MongoDB. Databases Int. J. Cybern. Inf. (IJCI) 5(2) (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Datastax Corporation. The Modern Online application for the Internet economy: 5 Key Requirements that Ensure Success. White paper by Datastax Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moradi, M., Ghadiri, N.: Performance Evaluation of SQL and MongoDB Databases for Big E-Commerce Data, p. 2 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Twitter Developers. Streaming APIs | Twitter Developer Documentation (2016). Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  13. 13.
    McKinney, W.: Python for Data Analysis, p. 5. O’Reilly Media Inc. (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Internet Live Stats. 2013. Twitter Usage Statistics. Internet Live Stats. Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  15. 15.
    Boicea, A., et al.: MongoDB vs Oracle – database comparison. In: Emerging Intelligent Data and Web Technologies (EIDWT) 2012 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing and Information SystemsSunway UniversitySubang JayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations