2016 IEEE Bombay Section Symposium (IBSS)
Comparison of SQL, NoSQL and NewSQL Databases
for Internet of Things
Haleemunnisa Fatima
Computer Science and Technology
UMIT, SNDT University
Mumbai, India.
fatima035@gmail.com
Abstract— The Internet of Things (IoT) in all its essentiality is
a collection of sensors bridged together tightly. The present day
development in the technology industry has thus elevated the
emphasis of large amounts of data. IoT is expected to generate
and collect an enormous amount of data from varied locations
very quickly. The concerns for features like storage and
performance factors are coercing the databases to outperform
themselves. Traditional relational databases have time and again
proved to be efficient. NoSQL and more recently NewSQL
databases having gained an impetus are asserted to perform
better than the classic SQL counterpart. This paper compares the
performance of three databases each from the said technologies;
SQL (MySQL), NoSQL (MongoDB) and NewSQL (VoltDB)
respectively for sensor readings. The sensor data handled ranges
in vast (MB to GB) size and tested against: single write, single
read, single delete and multi write operations.
Keywords— Internet of Things; databases; SQL; NoSQL;
NewSQL; data; performance
I. INTRODUCTION
Database Management System is a comprehensive
terminology that refers to a software tool that collaborates
users and applications and lets the user store, alter and recover
the stored data. There are three classes of database systems
namely, Relational Database Systems (RDBMS) based on the
relational model by E.F.Codd [1], primarily known as the
traditional system. These database systems are also known as
SQL systems chiefly as they adopt SQL as their querying
language. With the arrival of internet and a plethora of
applications connected to the internet increased, the amount of
data generated too increased drastically. To handle this
massive amount of data effectively two new classes of
databases were born, non-relational and more recently new-
relational; popularly known as NoSQL and NewSQL
databases respectively.
In the last couple of years there has been a
remarkable rise in the amount of data that is being generated.
Big data is a term, used to describe this enormous quantity of
data, which is structured, semi-structured and unstructured.
According to the Gartner group, Big Data can be defined by
3Vs: volume, velocity and variety [2]. Processing such vast
amounts of data requires speed, flexible schemas and
distributed databases [3].
978-1-5090-2730-9/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Prof. Kumud Wasnik
Computer Science and Technology
UMIT, SNDT University
Mumbai, India.
kumudwasnik@gmail.com
With the advancement in technology the use of smart
applications has increased drastically. Internet of Things, IoT,
touches every facet of our life through various sensor
empowered devices such as smart homes, smart tracking,
smart watches, wearables and et al. The term Internet of
Things (IoT), also known as Internet of Objects refers to the
networked interconnection of everyday objects, which is
generally viewed as a self-configuring wireless network of
sensors whose purpose would be to interconnect all things [4].
The IoT consists of an enormous ever changing and increasing
network, involving billions of objects. These objects both
generate data and communicate with each other at the same
time. The data thus generated is in tremendous volume that
eventually comes to the network at real-time.
Due to these attributes of the said data, processing,
managing and storing becomes a difficult task. Thus, a system
that can overcome the challenge of accumulating and handling
such an ample amount of data is needed. For this reason, it is
imperative to evaluate the different DBMS systems with
respect to their performance. RDBMS or SQL have been used
to store and recover immense amount of data since their
inception. They have a fixed schema and store data in the
traditional row and column format in a table. The databases
adhering to this class handle the concurrency in transactions
by the way of conservation of ACID properties, where a
transaction must either be complete or not at all. Although this
model has its set of setbacks it is an efficient and a reliable
standard model.
Owing to these characteristics of SQL databases a
new class of databases, namely, NoSQL emerged. NoSQL
databases otherwise known as Not-only-SQL databases belong
to the non-relational model. These databases are schema free
and have a flexible schema design that can handle a variety of
data. They are scalable and provide high availability thereby,
being more favourable to store Big Data and IoT data. The
NewSQL or the modern relational model on the other hand, is
designed in a way that it retains the relational aspect of the
traditional RDBMS while at the same time incorporating
solutions provided by NoSQL databases. They are claimed to
be the most promising database management system as well as
far more adept at handling data than other databases for the
ever increasing IoT data.
2016 IEEE Bombay Section Symposium (IBSS)
This paper investigates different types of databases.
The focus is to evaluate and compare NewSQL and NoSQL
databases against traditional relational SQL database, in order
to point out their differences in performance. Along with that,
the paper distinguishes the typical types of IoT data, and uses
the sensor data that is most commonly found. Tests have been
performed for three popular databases: MySQL belonging to
SQL, MongoDB representing the NoSQL category and
VoltDB representing NewSQL. All the databases were loaded
on physical machine server.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section
II focuses on related work in the database performance with
respect to IoT data. Section III covers the proposed system
architecture. Section IV covers experimental setup. Section V
covers analysis and results. Section VI eventually draws a
conclusion and mentions future research.
II. RELATED WORK
A. SQL vs NoSQL vs NewSQL
This section reviews the existing data models and related
surveys done in the domain of database management systems.
Broadly there are three main data models viz. the Traditional
or Relational model, The Non-relational model and Modern
Relational model.
In the classical RDBMS model, the data is organized in the
form of relations and is represented in a table consisting of
rows and columns. Relational databases employ the usage of a
parameter known as key. There are several types of keys
available albeit primary key is one of the most important key
of the table; it is used to identify each row of the table
uniquely. There are four main operations used to access the
database they are known as CRUD namely, Create, Read,
Update and Delete associated with the data. These operations
use the Structured Query Language –SQL. ACID properties
are one of the most significant and important attributes of a
SQL database. This is the key difference between SQL and
NoSQL database systems. The NewSQL approach on the
other hand, conserves and supports the properties of relational
model, at the same time incorporating the features of NoSQL
model.
There are several database contributions that offer viable
solutions and adaptable data models for both existing and
future applications depending on what results are to be yielded
based on the DBMS system used [5]. Numerous survey papers
have thus been published (Hecht, R., & Jablonski, S. [6] or
Tudorica, B. G., & Bucur, C. [7] or Moniruzzaman, A. B. M.
[8]) to remark and give feedback in response to the queries
that arise.
B. Internet of Things
The term Internet of Things (IoT), also known as Internet
of Objects refers to the networked interconnection of everyday
objects, which is generally viewed as a self-configuring
wireless network of sensors whose purpose would be to
interconnect all things [4]. Internet-of-Things, IoT, is an
application domain that integrates different technological and
social fields [9].
978-1-5090-2730-9/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
J.S van der Veen et al. [10] compared SQL and NoSQL
category of databases, namely PostgreSQL, MongoDB and
Cassandra for storing sensor data. The tests were run in
contrast with physical server and a virtual machine. The
outcome of this research yielded no definite winner as
PostgreSQL performed better in case of reads while
MongoDB in case of writes. Another research by Phan Thi
Anh Mai et al. [11] comparing MySQL versus MongoDB[12],
CouchDB[13] and Redis[14] as a storage for both sensor and
multimedia data; the tests were carried out with emphasis on
MySQL verses MongoDB. The research focused on the
performance of the said databases in the cloud environment.
The final outcome was clear for CouchDB and Redis who did
not appear to be the best choice when IoT data is taken into
consideration while with respect to MongoDB and MySQL
the results followed the pattern similar to J.S van der
Veen[10], with no definite winner.
In this paper, we too take into accord the same type of data
as in [7] but we include a new class of database, NewSQL, to
store the sensor data and test the performance of the said
databases.
III. PROPOSED SYSTEM AND ARCHITECTURE
A. Architectural Overview
The system implemented for the tests simulated a sensor
network; the architecture is shown in Figure 1. The local
network comprises of one central database server located on a
physical server machine connected to multiple simulating
devices or nodes. Each simulating device then directly collects
the sensor data, sound in our case and sends it over the
network to the database server. Multiple database clients can
upload and read these data from the server. In the
implementation, we have used a microphone sensor to detect
the incoming sound and send it to the database.
In proceedings, the writing thread is meant to run
continuously without disconnection. However, in the tests, we
only measured the time taken to execute a particular number
of writes and on a local wireless network. The system is
expected to serve clients in real time which means that once
the data is generated, it sends the data immediately to the
database and ready for clients to query.
Figure 1: Proposed System
2016 IEEE Bombay Section Symposium (IBSS)

B. Problem Statement they communicated to the server machine running the

The most pressing question is handling data, more
precisely Internet of Things data in an efficient manner. As
mentioned above there are an array of databases currently
available, falling under the SQL, NoSQL and NewSQL
database systems. However, which database provides the best
viable solution and is equipped to handle IoT data still looms
at large. As far as our research goes, not much research has
been done to include NewSQL databases when in comparison
far too much research has been done and is ongoing with
respect to NoSQL databases. Hence, the paper addresses this
issue and speculates the results for best performance for a
large amount of IoT data.
The focus of this paper is to investigate and compare the
three database technologies, with respect to performance as
the amount of data increases. The type of IoT data used is
sensor data. The three popular databases considered are
MySQL, MongoDB and VoltDB respectively.
C. Data Structures
The common data structure for all records is shown
in Table I. When storing this data type in different databases,
there was a slight difference in the database storage structures.
They were grouped as
database in LAN via wireless network connection, thus
simulating an IoT system. Threads in java were used to
replicate multiple clients. The device can perform basic
operations on the databases by gathering the sensor data and
storing it in the database. The tests were to run these
operations with different workload.
The tests were to evaluate the performance of the basic
read, write and delete operations. Both single client and multi
client. In order to increase reliability, each test of the same
input were run multiple times (at least 5 times). The final
result for a test was then the average of these individual runs.
A. Sound Meter
Sensors take measurements of their surroundings at
certain interval of time. Each measured value of the sensors is
then transmitted from the client via a network to the database
stored in the server that is in the same network as that of the
client. The sensed data is the minimum amount of information
a general sensor data system needs.
The sensor used for this research is a Sound Meter
that collects the sound it senses (in dB) via the Microphone
sensor device embedded in a smartphone. Thus, the
smartphone acts the IoT device used to collect data and send it
across the server to the database.

Table I: Data Structure V. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Name Type In this section, the results of all the tests taken as well as
sound varchar evaluation for the same are presented. Based on the operation
latitude varchar performed on the incoming sensor data, the results are divided
longitude varchar into four different categories:
x A single client with single read, write and delete
D. Operating Environment
operation.
Table II lists the hardware and software that was used for x A single client with multi write operation.
the tests. In addition, Apache2 server was deployed on the x A multi client with single read and write operation.
physical machines running the databases. The machines were x A multi client with multi write operation.
connected via wireless network.
Since for MySQL and MongoDB simple insert is
Table II: Hardware and Software
employed as a DDL schema the same with VoltDB [15] is
Parameters Server Client
considered. Although tests for VoltDB using stored procedure
OS 64-bit Ubuntu 14.04 64-bit Ubuntu 14.04
were also considered and performed, they are not included in
Processor Intel Core i7-3770 Intel Core i5-2410M the graph analysis. Analysis proved that VoltDB outperforms
CPU @ 3.40 GHz × 8 CPU @ 2.30GHz × 4 when stored procedure was considered as compared to simple
MySQL 5.5.49 JDBC Connector insert.
Version 5.1.39
A. Single Client Single Operations
MongoDB 3.2.7 Java Driver 3.2.0
VoltDB 6.3 Java Driver 6.3 In single client single write operation depicted in
JDK 1.8.0 1.8.0 Figure 2, there is a vast difference between MySQL with
PHP 5.5 5.5 respect to MongoDB and VoltDB. In comparison VoltDB
performs very well, MongoDB performs moderately while
MySQL performs very poorly.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The main goal of the tests was to compare the performance
of different databases as physical databases. Hence, the
database servers were placed on the physical machines. An
IoT device was implemented to play the role of the database
clients. Although for huge amount of data, client machines
running a Java program were used to generate the data, and

978-1-5090-2730-9/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

2016 IEEE Bombay Section Symposium (IBSS)

B. Single Client Multi Operations

Figure 5 shows the performance of a single client issuing
multiple write requests to the database. VoltDB is not used in

Figure 2: Single Client Single Write

Figure 5: Single Client Multi Write

this comparison as it uses a partitioned table concept where
the data is filled very quickly, although you can batch multiple
SQL statements together in a stored procedure by calling the
predefined function voltQueueSQL() it can only take 1000 at a
time, hence it is excluded in our performance metric.
MongoDB is a clear winner in this one followed by MySQL.
Contrary to single insert, MySQL is fast and efficient when
writing bulk records in the database thereby increasing the
performance considerably.

Figure 3: Single Client Single Read C. Multi Client Single Operations

Figure 6 shows the performance of multiple clients
issuing single write requests to the database. The databases are
very fast when a single client is used, but decrease slowly
when clients are added. Initially, the performance of
MongoDB and VoltDB varies slightly but as the number of
records with respect to clients increases, the performance
varies considerably. In the complete outcome, VoltDB
outshines MongoDB marginally if the number of records are
increased significantly. MySQL yet again falls out of the
league, with the performance being very poor.

Figure 4: Single Client Single Delete

Figure 3 shows the performance of a single client single read

operation request to the database. As with write operation,
VoltDB performs exceptionally well again followed closely by
MySQL whereas MongoDB lags behind. Although the
difference between the three databases is far less as compared
to write operations.
Figure 4 shows the performance of a single client
single delete operation request to the database. The order is the Figure 6: Multi Client Single Write
same as with read, although delete operation difference is
much less compared to reading. Figure 7 shows the performance of multiple
clients issuing single read requests to the database. All the
databases benefit when using multi client for read operations.
In the first certain set of records, MySQL outperforms VoltDB

978-1-5090-2730-9/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

2016 IEEE Bombay Section Symposium (IBSS)
slightly but VoltDB steadily gains a better hand as the number
of records increases. During the start MongoDB lags behind
considerably as opposed to the other two databases. Inspite of
performing brilliantly at the onset the performance of MySQL
decreases suddenly with the increase of records, irrespective
of the clients. Hence, for more number of records MySQL or
VoltDB either can give similar performance but for large scale
performance VoltDB followed by MongoDB is better.
Figure 7: Multi Client Single Read
D. Multi Client Multi Operations
Figure 8 shows the performance of multiple clients issuing
multiple write requests to the database. VoltDB as mentioned
above is not considered in bulk operations. Both MongoDB
and MySQL do not benefit from multiple clients when issuing
bulk insert. The time taken for the number of operations stays
roughly the same irrespective of more number of records or
clients. At the onset, MongoDB performs well but later on
falls in step with MySQL.
Figure 8: Multi Client Multi Write
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The purpose of this research project was to explore how
different database systems can handle diverse and large
amount of data of the Internet of Things effectively in terms of
performance with increasing load. Three classes of databases
were studied, namely, SQL, NoSQL and NewSQL databases.
SQL databases are relational and focus on the ACID
properties. NoSQL databases on the other hand are schema-
less providing better performance and scalability and do not
adhere to the ACID properties. While NewSQL databases
978-1-5090-2730-9/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
retain SQL and ACID properties at the same time include
performance and scalability through the modern architecture.
Sensor data was chosen to be evaluated while
analyzing the performance. For sensor data, in write intensive
operations NewSQL database VoltDB showed good results
with respect to the write performance. The NoSQL counterpart
MongoDB came followed closely while relational MySQL
vastly lagged behind. In read intensive systems, VoltDB
performs exceptionally well followed by MySQL whereas
MongoDB comes last. But as the size of the data and the
number of clients are increased there is a considerable fall in
the performance of MySQL and progress in MongoDB. The
outcome of delete query in terms of performance is round
about same as that of read intensive operations.
Although the outcome clearly suggests that
VoltDB is faster and a clear winner in many cases, MongoDB
is in no means behind, as the performance can further be
improved by taking more advantage of the schema-less and
flexible data model.
In conclusion, as of the current status of all the
databases, VoltDB is a clear winner for IoT data. Every
system has its own pros and cons with performance being of
supreme priority. VoltDB though not purely OLAP oriented
has consistent performance compared to the other two
considered. Lastly, which database to choose however, highly
depends on the properties and requirements of the specific
system.
There is further room for research in the future,
one of the most pressing being analyzing the databases with
the multimedia data and other complicated types of IoT data
considering the growing demand of IoT, which was not
possible in this research project due to certain constraints.
REFERENCES
[1] Codd, Edgar F. "A relational model of data for large shared data banks."
Communications of the ACM 13.6 (1970): 377-387.
[2] Beyer, Mark A., and Douglas Laney. "The importance of ‘big data’: a
definition." Stamford, CT: Gartner (2012).
[3] Li, Yishan, and Sathiamoorthy Manoharan. "A performance comparison
of sql and nosql databases." Communications, Computers and Signal
Processing (PACRIM), 2013 IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on. IEEE,
2013.
[4] Conner, Margery (May 27 2010). Sensors empower the "Internet of
Things" pp. 32–38. ISSN 0012-7515
[5] Haleemunnisa Fatima, Kumud Wasnik."Comparision of SQL, NoSQL
and NewSQL Databases in light of Internet of Things - A Survey"
IJAECS, Vol 3, Issue-3,2016, pp.31-34.
[6] Hecht, Robin, and Stefan Jablonski. "NoSQL evaluation: A use case
oriented survey." (2011): 336-341.
[7] Tudorica, Bogdan George, and Cristian Bucur. "A comparison between
several NoSQL databases with comments and notes." Roedunet
International Conference (RoEduNet), 2011 10th. IEEE, 2011.
[8] Moniruzzaman, A. B. M. "NewSQL: Towards Next-Generation Scalable
RDBMS for Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) for Big Data
Management." arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.7343 (2014).
[9] Minerva, Roberto, and Abiy Biru. "Towards a Definition of the Internet
of Things." IEEE IoT Initiative white paper.
[10] J. S. van der Veen, B. van der Waaij, and R. J. Meijer, "Sensor data
storage performance: Sql or nosql, physical or virtual." In Cloud
Computing (CLOUD), 2012 IEEE 5th International Conference on
(2012), IEEE, pp. 431-438.
2016 IEEE Bombay Section Symposium (IBSS)

[11] Phan, Thi Anh Mai, Jukka K. Nurminen, and Mario Di Francesco.
"Cloud Databases for Internet-of-Things Data." Internet of Things
(iThings), 2014 IEEE International Conference on, and Green
Computing and Communications (GreenCom), IEEE and Cyber,
Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom), IEEE. IEEE, 2014.
[12] The mongodb manual. http://docs.mongodb.org/manual
[13] Couchdb, a database for the web. http://couchdb.apache.org/
[14] Redis. http://redis.io/.
[15] Stonebraker, Michael. "NewSQL: An Alternative to NoSQL and Old
SQL for New OLTP Apps." Communications of the ACM. Retrieved
(2012): 07-06.

978-1-5090-2730-9/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE