Google's BigQuery is part of the Google Cloud Platform, a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) supporting the querying and rapid analysis of enterprise data.
$0.04
RavenDB
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
RavenDB is a NoSQL Document Database that is fully transactional (ACID) across the database and throughout clusters. The database minimizes the need for third party addons, tools, or support to boost developer productivity and get projects into production fast. Users can setup and secure a data cluster deploy in the cloud, on-premise or in a hybrid environment. RavenDB offers a Database as a Service solution, allowing users to pass on all…
N/A
Pricing
Google BigQuery
RavenDB
Editions & Modules
Standard edition
$0.04 / slot hour
Enterprise edition
$0.06 / slot hour
Enterprise Plus edition
$0.10 / slot hour
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google BigQuery
RavenDB
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google BigQuery
RavenDB
Considered Both Products
Google BigQuery
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Google BigQuery
is much better as it’s easily accessible provides velvet documentation and fulfils all our needs as well as easily integrated into clients, environment
Google BigQuery is simpler and I say it has simpler UI too. If you have a clear long term ask , mainly business intelligence needs then Google BigQuery offers you good. If you need too much of features under a single cloud and you are ok to be lil clumsy then you can check …
I have used most of the data analytics platforms. Based on my work, I have found that the user interface of Google BigQuery is simple to navigate. I like the front view - ease of joining tables, and integration with other platforms.
Compared to every other analytics DB solution I've used, Google BigQuery was by far the easiest to set up and maintain, and scale. The price was also much lower for our use case (internal data analysis).
For our usage, Google BigQuery is cheaper and more performant. The others have their place, but in certain scenarios, Google BigQuery is a better solution.
We actually use Snowflake and BigQuery in tandem because they both currently meet various needs. Redshift, however, has barely been used since our migration away from it. In the case of both Snowflake and BigQuery, they beat Redshift by a long shot. The main reasons are their …
I came to use BigQuery from a traditional system like MS SQL server, the features which are available in BigQuery as a cloud service far outweigh the features from SQL server. I have not used other similar tools like Amazon Redshift but Google BigQuery serves multiple use cases …
Google BigQuery is cheaper and much faster as compared to both. While as compared to Snowflake , we tested it was faster and cheaper by 30%, that is after Snowflake tweaked their environment, if not for that it would have been 90% cheaper than snowflake. Redshift is not easy …
In my opinion, Google BigQuery is custom made to be the best data lake system that is easy to use, scalas to fit any business size, has inbuilt security, as well as tools for data integrity. Although a few other tools have some of the same functionality, Google BigQuery is the …
It's easier to connect data between BigQuery and looker studio instead of connecting the data between BigQuery and tableau in terms of data explore or dashboard creating. Therefore we are considering migrating dashboards from tableau to looker studio for the whole company. On …
When comparing Google BigQuery and Databricks, both platforms are powerful tools for managing and analyzing large datasets. BQ is ideal for businesses requiring large-scale analytics, reporting, and dashboarding with minimal operational overhead. It’s also great for ad-hoc …
Google BigQuery's main advantage over its direct competitors (Amazon Redshift and Azure Synapse) is that it is widely supported by non-Google software, while the others rely heavily on their own cloud ecosystems.
I have used other data manipulation tools like SQL Server and Google BigQuery feels more intuitive, Google provides so much documentation and tutorials that getting to know the software is not only easy but even satisfactory, so I'd say Google BigQuery is very superior to that …
Amazon Redshift was a likely alternative we were considering , but it needs to be provisioned on cluster and nodes, which increases infrastructure management, whereas Google BigQuery is serverless, so no infra management :) Also, I remember when comparing them we did found out …
Google BigQuery as a platform allows for more integrations and customizability than many other offerings. Users mostly need to understand the basics of database and SQL programming in order to get the most from the product. However, other products like Hevo do have less of a …
There are some areas in which this product is better while there are some in which others do better. It's not like Google BigQuery surpasses them in every metric. For a holistic view, I will say we use this because of - scalability, performance, ease of use, and seamless …
The data performance of Google BigQuery is best as per other software. Limitations on Google BigQuery's data size are superior to those of Microsoft SQL. Obtaining real-time data from several IoT devices is another benefit.
I personally find it by far simpler than Amazon redshift due it's onboarding seamlessness. For a quick start and simplify tye access to read the data big query provide better user experience and a smoother user interface. More importantly, the fact that Big Query can be easily …
BigQuery can automatically scale to accommodate the data and query load, providing potentially unlimited scalability. At the same time, Redshift requires manual scaling efforts to increase or decrease capacity, which might affect performance during scaling operations.
We focused more on data volume and less on full application capabilities. All in all, we found that the two solutions complement each other. For integration, some sources were better handled in SAP HANA, particularly other SAP systems where Google Big Query was more suitable …
SingleStore has a much lower query latency compared to BigQuery. Thus, we segregate faster tasks to SingleStore, and use BigQuery has our main database to store all historical data.
Google BigQuery i would say is better to use than AWS Redshift but not SQL products but this could be due to being more experience in Microsoft and AWS products. It would be really nice if it could use standard SQL server coding rather than having to learn another dialect of …
First and foremost, Google BigQuery's pricing structure, based on data processing and storage, is more cost-effective for our needs. Secondly, since we already use other Google Cloud services, its tight integration with them especially, with Cloud Storage and Dataflow was a big …
First of all, Microsoft Access is also a powerful, efficient, and free database. But the feel of it, I mean the GUI is not all great for me. It is very eye-stressing. MongoDB is also a good database, it too is efficient, productive, and powerful. But, upon this, RavenDB is a …
The team is very nice, very helpful, and answer very fast to any answer you may have. Thanks to their help, we were able to use and understand all the RavenDB features in no time! Documentation for server and client is very clear, with a lot of use cases. Maintenance is easy, …
RavenDB is just smarter than the competitors. The mapping reduction sorting is head and shoulders above everything else I've used. Nothing really approaches comparable in terms of complexity. Because of the searching of predetermined categories, read efficiency is terrible. …
The company needed a cache server that was closest and the most accessible, which is why we are currently experimenting with RavenDB which gives us the option to set up our hub in a local setting.
Much better support, more transparent pricing, much more easy setup process, native integration into c# / net core. We also tried to set up a Mongo Atlas cluster by self-study but weren't able to get this running. There is a much better response when searching in google, but a …
While MongoDB is in general more popular, I cannot fathom why that is. If you want ACID support (and as a developer, you'll always want that), MongoDB is way slower when compared to RavenDB. Furthermore, RavenStudio is just integrated, while
[RavenDB is] just simply much cleverer than the competition. The map reduce indexing is a league above anything else I have used. Nothing else comes close on abstraction as well. Read performance is terrifying due to querying pre calculated indexes. It is just a pity it is not …
Having ACID compliance is a big enough reason to choose RavenDB over the other products. You don't have to worry about losing your data if the plug is pulled. You're able to perform many actions within a transaction and not worry about your data being in a bad state if the …
Installing and configuring. We had some big issues with indexing the data after the documents were created and wanted to expand the index, with millions of records this task mostly did not complete despite a dedicated server.
Out of the many variants of document and SQL databases out there that we have used, RavenDB is our no 1 choice for anything but the smallest projects which can be served with a very small SQL instance. Other than that, RavenDB packs more features and is easier to work with than …
The given alternatives are also powerful and really good noSQL databases but the highest availability of RavenDB allows me/us to know it a lot better. RavenDB is encrypted by default wherever we use it in production and it has a high level of documents compression.
As I have said before in the previous questions ... RavenDB has a very simple clean UI, but stacks up in its power. Though new to me, I have found it to be much easier to learn and use than my previous database - Microsoft SQL Server. RavenDB's simple design and meaningful …
Being that ACID and cluster transaction support is a big plus against all of them. Cool prices on Azure and AWS is another plus. The ability to search between millions of documents.
When I first started using RavenDB, I did evaluate Mongo DB but found it to be lacking. The primary issue was that Mongo DB did not support atomic consistency for the persistence of multiple documents at the same time, although I think this may not be an issue with subsequent …
Once I had got my head around the concept of a document database it was a happy bye-bye to SQL Server. Firebird - far too fiddly - I found myself writing a silly API to sit on top of Firebird just to do the most basic things. MongoDb - in the very short time I spent with it, it …
We chose Raven over Mongo because it has robust support for multi-document transactions, first-class .NET and LINQ support, a well-designed API that has inspired imitation and has better tooling out of the box. We chose Raven over Redis because Raven is a full persistent …
Google BigQuery is great for being the central datastore and entry point of data if you're on GCP. It seamlessly integrates with other Google products, meaning you can ingest data from other Google products with ease and little technical knowledge, and all of it is near real-time. Being serverless, BigQuery will scale with you, which means you don't have to worry about contention or spikes in demand/storage. This can, however, mean your costs can run away quickly or mount up at short notice.
RavenDB is very well suited for NoSQL beginners to start easily setting up and using a NoSQL database. Also to set up a high performance and high availability cluster is possible without reading tons of documentation. Very straightforward assistant! The performance is really high.
Its serverless architecture and underlying Dremel technology are incredibly fast even on complex datasets. I can get answers to my questions almost instantly, without waiting hours for traditional data warehouses to churn through the data.
Previously, our data was scattered across various databases and spreadsheets and getting a holistic view was pretty difficult. Google BigQuery acts as a central repository and consolidates everything in one place to join data sets and find hidden patterns.
Running reports on our old systems used to take forever. Google BigQuery's crazy fast query speed lets us get insights from massive datasets in seconds.
It is challenging to predict costs due to BigQuery's pay-per-query pricing model. User-friendly cost estimation tools, along with improved budget alerting features, could help users better manage and predict expenses.
The BigQuery interface is less intuitive. A more user-friendly interface, enhanced documentation, and built-in tutorial systems could make BigQuery more accessible to a broader audience.
We have to use this product as its a 3rd party supplier choice to utilise this product for their data side backend so will not be likely we will move away from this product in the future unless the 3rd party supplier decides to change data vendors.
We've had an excellent experience using RavenDB. Internally we are testing the newer features in 5.0 such as time series, which will effect the con specified previously dependent on the real world performance. We foresee that BattleCrate will continue to use RavenDB as we grow.
web UI is easy and convenient. Many RDBMS clients such as aqua data studio, Dbeaver data grid, and others connect. Range of well-documented APIs available. The range of features keeps expanding, increasing similar features to traditional RDBMS such as Oracle and DB2
Really good .NET client that is very easy to use. The management studio is excellent and puts anything that Microsoft or Oracle have to shame. Very quick to develop with once the complexity hurdle has been overcome. Initially using it can be a bit painful until you fully grasp the event sourced nature of the indexing.
I have never had any significant issues with Google Big Query. It always seems to be up and running properly when I need it. I cannot recall any times where I received any kind of application errors or unplanned outages. If there were any they were resolved quickly by my IT team so I didn't notice them.
I think Google Big Query's performance is in the acceptable range. Sometimes larger datasets are somewhat sluggish to load but for most of our applications it performs at a reasonable speed. We do have some reports that include a lot of complex calculations and others that run on granular store level data that so sometimes take a bit longer to load which can be frustrating.
BigQuery can be difficult to support because it is so solid as a product. Many of the issues you will see are related to your own data sets, however you may see issues importing data and managing jobs. If this occurs, it can be a challenge to get to speak to the correct person who can help you.
Had a question that was answered in minutes. Never used a NoSQL approach before, but was able to be proficient in a matter of hours. Easy to read API Documentation. 5 out 5 support in book, I have never once ran into an issue that wasn't quickly solved by either their support team or myself doing a quick search online.
Google BigQuery of course collects a much much larger array of raw data and can handle (practically) an unlimited amount of data. For a large enterprise like ours that relies on large-scale analytics, this is absolutely imperative. Google BigQuery can also combine GA4 data with external sources (like CRM tools), so our analytics can be unified. Due to our heavy reliance on GA4, Google BigQuery is the natural choice since it is a Google product and has better integration.
RavenDB is just smarter than the competitors. The mapping reduction sorting is head and shoulders above everything else I've used. Nothing really approaches comparable in terms of complexity. Because of the searching of predetermined categories, read efficiency is terrible. RavenDB is a storage system designed for the current websites and functional prototypes. It has an easy-to-use interface and enables quick replication and backup installation. Furthermore, technical assistance responds quickly and walks you through the implementation and deployment procedures.
We have continued to expand out use of Google Big Query over the years. I'd say its flexibility and scalability is actually quite good. It also integrates well with other tools like Tableau and Power BI. It has served the needs of multiple data sources across multiple departments within my company.
In some places, Google BigQuery has helped us save some money by avoiding the need for expensive infrastructure and reducing some of the operational costs.
Scalability is up-to-date and really helpful in multiple places.
Knowledge transfer is easy as it is very user-friendly, so the learning curve has been reduced.
Also, it gives us more insights from our data, helping us make smarter decisions for our business.
RavenDB has saved my customers a lot of money with their cloud services' tiered model. The database is able to grow with the project/company and can start out small at a low cost.
RavenDB is free for three nodes and three CPUs, which makes it great for development scenarios. You're able to start rapidly building applications without having to worry about licensing.
Scaling out has allowed us to use three small cloud servers when starting out and get the performance and throughput of a single larger server.