1286  Database Selection Tool

Choose the Right Database for IoT

1286.1 IoT Database Selection Advisor

Choosing the right database for an IoT application is a critical architectural decision. This interactive tool helps you evaluate and compare database options based on your specific workload requirements, data patterns, and scalability needs.

NoteTool Overview

This advisor evaluates five popular database options for IoT:

  • InfluxDB: Purpose-built time-series database with high write performance
  • TimescaleDB: PostgreSQL extension combining SQL with time-series optimization
  • MongoDB: Flexible document database for varied data structures
  • Cassandra: Distributed database for massive scale and high availability
  • PostgreSQL: Proven relational database with JSONB and TimescaleDB compatibility
TipHow to Use This Tool
  1. Adjust the workload parameters using the sliders and selectors
  2. View the recommendation that updates in real-time
  3. Examine the radar chart comparing all databases across key metrics
  4. Review the scoring breakdown to understand the reasoning
  5. Experiment with different configurations to see how requirements affect choices

1286.2 Understanding Database Selection for IoT

1286.2.1 Key Decision Factors

When selecting a database for IoT applications, consider these critical factors:

Factor Impact Considerations
Ingestion Rate Write performance, buffering High rates favor write-optimized DBs
Query Pattern Index design, response time Ad-hoc needs SQL; time-range needs ordering
Consistency Data accuracy, latency Financial/safety data needs strong consistency
Scale Architecture, cost Horizontal scaling for millions of devices
Retention Storage, compression Long retention needs efficient compression

1286.2.2 Database Profiles

NoteInfluxDB

Best for: Pure time-series metrics with high write volume

  • Native time-series database with retention policies
  • Flux query language optimized for time-series operations
  • Excellent for metrics dashboards (Grafana integration)
  • Cardinality limits may affect high-dimensional data
NoteTimescaleDB

Best for: Time-series data requiring SQL and joins

  • PostgreSQL extension with automatic partitioning
  • Full SQL support including JOINs and complex queries
  • Continuous aggregates for efficient downsampling
  • Excellent compression for time-series data
NoteMongoDB

Best for: Varied data structures and document flexibility

  • Schema-less design adapts to changing requirements
  • Time-series collections (5.0+) with automatic bucketing
  • Horizontal scaling with sharding
  • Rich aggregation pipeline for analytics
NoteCassandra

Best for: Massive scale with high availability needs

  • Linear scalability across datacenters
  • Tunable consistency per operation
  • Excellent write performance
  • Best for known query patterns (no ad-hoc)
NotePostgreSQL

Best for: Complex relational queries and ACID requirements

  • Most mature and proven technology
  • Excellent for structured data with relationships
  • Can be enhanced with TimescaleDB or Citus
  • Rich ecosystem and tooling

1286.2.3 Decision Tree Summary

                    β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”
                    β”‚  What's your primary    β”‚
                    β”‚  workload type?         β”‚
                    β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜
                                β”‚
        β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”
        β–Ό           β–Ό           β–Ό           β–Ό           β–Ό
   Time-Series  Key-Value   Document   Relational   Mixed
        β”‚           β”‚           β”‚           β”‚           β”‚
        β–Ό           β–Ό           β–Ό           β–Ό           β–Ό
   InfluxDB/    Cassandra   MongoDB   PostgreSQL  TimescaleDB
   TimescaleDB
WarningTradeoff: Schema-on-Write vs Schema-on-Read for IoT Data

Option A: Schema-on-Write (Relational, Pre-defined Structure) - Data validation: Enforced at write time (reject malformed data immediately) - Query performance: Fast - optimizer knows exact column types and indexes - Storage efficiency: High - fixed-width columns, no schema overhead per record - Flexibility: Low - schema changes require migrations, downtime possible - Query latency: 2-10ms (optimized execution plans) - Best for: Device registry, billing, compliance data where structure is stable

Option B: Schema-on-Read (Document/Key-Value, Flexible Structure) - Data validation: Deferred to query time (accept anything, validate later) - Query performance: Variable - must parse documents, no guaranteed indexes - Storage efficiency: Lower - schema metadata embedded in each document - Flexibility: High - add fields anytime, no migrations needed - Query latency: 10-50ms (runtime parsing and type coercion) - Best for: Device telemetry with varying sensor types, event logs, config data

Decision Factors: - Choose Schema-on-Write when: Data structure is well-defined and stable, query performance is critical (<10ms SLA), data quality must be enforced at source, compliance requires data validation audit trails - Choose Schema-on-Read when: Sensor types vary across devices (heterogeneous fleet), schema evolves frequently (new firmware adds fields), rapid prototyping valued over data integrity, analytics team needs raw data flexibility - Hybrid approach: Schema-on-write for core metrics (temperature, humidity with strict types), schema-on-read for metadata (device config, custom attributes stored as JSONB) - Migration example: Adding β€œbattery_level” field - Schema-on-write requires ALTER TABLE + backfill; Schema-on-read accepts new field immediately

WarningTradeoff: Single-Node vs Distributed Database for IoT

Option A: Single-Node Database (PostgreSQL, SQLite) - Operational complexity: Low - one server to manage, backup, monitor - Write throughput: 10K-100K writes/sec (limited by single CPU/disk) - Query latency: 1-10ms (no network hops, local execution) - Consistency: Strong ACID guarantees (single source of truth) - Cost: $200-500/month for powerful single instance (32GB RAM, NVMe) - Best for: < 50K sensors, < 100K writes/sec, team without distributed systems expertise

Option B: Distributed Database (Cassandra, CockroachDB, TimescaleDB Multi-Node) - Operational complexity: High - coordination, rebalancing, partition management - Write throughput: 500K-5M writes/sec (scales linearly with nodes) - Query latency: 5-50ms (network hops, consensus overhead) - Consistency: Configurable (strong or eventual, per operation) - Cost: $2,000-10,000/month for 5-10 node cluster with replication - Best for: > 100K sensors, > 500K writes/sec, HA requirements, multi-region deployment

Decision Factors: - Choose Single-Node when: Write volume under 100K/sec, total data under 5TB, team is small (1-2 engineers), latency requirements are strict (<10ms p99), budget is limited - Choose Distributed when: Write volume exceeds 200K/sec, need 99.99%+ availability (no single point of failure), data exceeds single-node capacity (10TB+), geographic distribution required (multi-datacenter) - Scaling path: Start single-node (PostgreSQL/TimescaleDB), add read replicas when reads bottleneck, shard when writes bottleneck or storage exceeds 5TB - Cost reality: 10-node cluster costs 10-20x more than single node but provides <10x performance gain for most IoT workloads - right-size your infrastructure


1286.3 Quick Start: Common Scenarios

Use these preset configurations to explore typical IoT database requirements:

Scenario Ingestion Query Pattern Scale Best Choice
Smart Home Hub 100 msg/s Real-time dashboard 50 devices InfluxDB or PostgreSQL
Industrial Monitoring 10K msg/s Time-range + alerts 1,000 sensors TimescaleDB
Fleet Tracking 50K msg/s Geospatial + history 10K vehicles MongoDB with geo indexes
Smart City Platform 500K msg/s Analytics + dashboards 100K sensors Cassandra + InfluxDB hybrid
Healthcare Wearables 5K msg/s Ad-hoc + compliance 5K patients PostgreSQL (HIPAA)

1286.4 Knowledge Check

Knowledge Check: IoT Database Selection Quick Check

❓ Question 1: An IoT platform needs to store sensor data from 100,000 devices, each sending 1 reading/second. Which database characteristic is MOST important?

πŸ’‘ Explanation: At 100K devices Γ— 1 msg/sec = 100,000 writes/second. This exceeds single-node PostgreSQL capacity (~50K/sec). Write throughput is the bottleneck. InfluxDB, TimescaleDB (multi-node), or Cassandra handle this volume. JOINs and ACID are nice-to-have but not the limiting factor.

❓ Question 2: A medical device company needs to store patient vital signs with strict audit requirements. Which database is MOST appropriate?

πŸ’‘ Explanation: Healthcare data requires HIPAA compliance with strict audit trails, data integrity, and often legal discovery requirements. PostgreSQL’s ACID guarantees, mature audit logging, and regulatory acceptance make it the standard for healthcare. Speed is secondary to compliance.

❓ Question 3: Your startup has 1,000 sensors and a 2-person engineering team. You expect 10x growth in 18 months. What’s the best initial database strategy?

πŸ’‘ Explanation: For small teams, operational simplicity trumps theoretical scalability. 1,000 sensors at 1 msg/sec = 1,000 writes/sec - easily handled by single-node. TimescaleDB gives growth path (add replicas, then multi-node) without immediate distributed system complexity. Over-engineering early wastes resources.