We performed a comparison between LocalDB and Teradata based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Relational Databases Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is fast."
"The initial setup was simple."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The guidelines are very easy to follow. Maintenance is very easy and requires very little manpower."
"The most valuable feature of LocalDBis the connection between the application and DB."
"I found all parts --loading, transformation, processing & querying work in parallel, and end-to-end-- to be valuable."
"I like this solution's ease of design and the fact that its performance is quite good. It is stable as well."
"Teradata solutions help organizations reduce IT, operations, and maintenance costs; enhance on-time delivery of products and services."
"Parallel processing features have helped to easily dump any size of data and retrieve data with great performance."
"Improved performance of ETL procedures, reporting."
"The most valuable features of Teradata are that it is a massively parallel platform and I can receive a lot of data and get the queries out correctly, especially if it's been appropriately designed. The native features make it very suitable for multiple large data tasks in a structured data environment. Additionally, the automation is very good."
"It has a solid set of tools and consulting services."
"The feature that we find most valuable is its ability to perform Massive Parallel Processing."
"The solution needs to create a management tool. Right now, the solution has tools for creating a local installation, but it's too simplistic. We need something that's a bit more complex so that we can extend the tools with our scripts."
"The ALM features can be improved, but the database by itself is reliable."
"The internal connection features of LocalDB could improve."
"The initial setup is complex and requires a skilled person."
"I'm not sure about the unstructured data management capabilities. It could be improved."
"Sometimes the large injestion takes days to load data, and some of our stored procedures take two to three days."
"Teradata should focus on functionality for building predictive models because, in that regard, it can definitely improve."
"Teradata could improve by being less complicated. There are some aspects that are not available on the Unix server and a Unix system is required to access some data, such as in case of an emergency."
"The increasing volumes of data demand more and more performance."
"We tried to use case Teradata for a data warehouse system, but we had some problems in relation to the Teradata system, CDC tools, and source databases. We were unable to transfer data from HPE Integrity mainframe to Teradata."
"There is a need to improve performance in high transaction processes, as well as the reporting system."
"The SQL Assistant is very basic. This tool can be improved for usability."
LocalDB is ranked 15th in Relational Databases Tools with 5 reviews while Teradata is ranked 7th in Relational Databases Tools with 54 reviews. LocalDB is rated 9.0, while Teradata is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of LocalDB writes "Good for the development process, generally stable, and easy to set up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Teradata writes "Offers seamless integration capabilities and performance optimization features, including extensive indexing and advanced tuning capabilities". LocalDB is most compared with SQL Server, MySQL, Oracle Database In-Memory, Oracle Database and Infobright DB, whereas Teradata is most compared with SQL Server, Snowflake, Oracle Exadata, MySQL and BigQuery. See our LocalDB vs. Teradata report.
See our list of best Relational Databases Tools vendors.
We monitor all Relational Databases Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.