Published: 2025-08-01
Performance Analysis of NoSQL Databases: MongoDB Document Store and Redis Key-Value Store in Microservices-Based Applications Using Flask
DOI: 10.35870/ijsecs.v5i2.4206
Dava Ataya Shafi Andali, Yeremia Alfa Susetyo
Article Metrics
- Views 0
- Downloads 0
- Scopus Citations
- Google Scholar
- Crossref Citations
- Semantic Scholar
- DataCite Metrics
-
If the link doesn't work, copy the DOI or article title for manual search (API Maintenance).
Abstract
The research examines performance characteristics between two NoSQL database architectures: MongoDB as a document-oriented system and Redis as an in-memory key-value store, implemented within microservices applications developed using Flask framework. Growing enterprise requirements for scalable, high-performance systems drive increased adoption of NoSQL databases paired with microservices architectures. The investigation assesses database performance through systematic CRUD and aggregation operations executed on nested data structures that mirror real-world public transportation datasets. Redis demonstrates superior operational efficiency in real-time scenarios, attributed to its memory-resident architecture. Empirical findings reveal Redis maintains consistently reduced response latencies compared to MongoDB across virtually all tested operations. Read operations show Redis achieving 0.00037-second average execution times, representing a 60.22% performance improvement over MongoDB's 0.00093-second baseline. Read-by-ID queries exhibit more pronounced differences, with Redis completing operations in 0.00105 seconds against MongoDB's 0.00873 seconds—an 87.96% performance differential. Update and delete operations demonstrate Redis execution times of 0.00026 and 0.00028 seconds respectively, compared to MongoDB's 0.00088 and 0.00087 seconds, yielding approximately 70% and 68% performance advantages. Delete-all operations reveal substantial disparities: Redis completes bulk deletions in 0.083 seconds while MongoDB requires 0.27 seconds, representing a 69.26% performance penalty. Aggregation functions including summation, minimum, and maximum value calculations follow similar performance patterns, with Redis executing operations more efficiently across all test scenarios. Performance evaluations were conducted on Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (Build 19045) equipped with 15.8 GB memory and an 11th Generation Intel® Core™ i5-11400H processor featuring 6 cores and 12 threads. Testing utilized MongoDB version 1.45.4 and Redis version 2.66, with hardware specifications directly influencing benchmark outcomes. Results indicate Redis optimization for applications demanding high-performance real-time data access, while MongoDB serves applications requiring flexible document storage capabilities and complex data structure management.
Keywords
NoSQL ; MongoDB ; Redis ; Microservices ; Flask ; Performance Benchmarking ; Document Database ; Key-value Store ; Real-time Data Processing ; CRUD Operations
Article Metadata
Peer Review Process
This article has undergone a double-blind peer review process to ensure quality and impartiality.
Indexing Information
Discover where this journal is indexed at our indexing page to understand its reach and credibility.
Open Science Badges
This journal supports transparency in research and encourages authors to meet criteria for Open Science Badges by sharing data, materials, or preregistered studies.
How to Cite
Article Information
This article has been peer-reviewed and published in the International Journal Software Engineering and Computer Science (IJSECS). The content is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
-
Issue: Vol. 5 No. 2 (2025)
-
Section: Articles
-
Published: %750 %e, %2025
-
License: CC BY 4.0
-
Copyright: © 2025 Authors
-
DOI: 10.35870/ijsecs.v5i2.4206
AI Research Hub
This article is indexed and available through various AI-powered research tools and citation platforms. Our AI Research Hub ensures that scholarly work is discoverable, accessible, and easily integrated into the global research ecosystem. By leveraging artificial intelligence for indexing, recommendation, and citation analysis, we enhance the visibility and impact of published research.
Dava Ataya Shafi Andali
Informatics Engineering Study Program, Faculty of Information Technology, Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga City, Central Java Province, Indonesia
-
Alzaidi, M., & Vagner, A. (2022). Benchmarking Redis and HBase NoSQL databases using Yahoo Cloud Service Benchmarking tool. Annales Mathematicae et Informaticae, 56, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.33039/ami.2022.12.006
-
Rathore, M., & Bagui, S. S. (2024, September). MongoDB: Meeting the dynamic needs of modern applications. Encyclopedia, 4(4), 1433–1453. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4040093
-
Blinowski, G., Ojdowska, A., & Przybylek, A. (2022). Monolithic vs. microservice architecture: A performance and scalability evaluation. IEEE Access, 10, 20357–20374. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3152803
-
Bushong, V., Abdelfattah, A. S., Cerny, T., Taibi, D., Lenarduzzi, V., & Khomh, F. (2021, September 1). On microservice analysis and architecture evolution: A systematic mapping study. Applied Sciences, 11(17), Article 7856. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11177856
-
Kausar, M. A., Nasar, M., & Soosaimanickam, A. (2022, August). A study of performance and comparison of NoSQL databases: MongoDB, Cassandra, and Redis using YCSB. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 15(31), 1532–1540. https://doi.org/10.17485/IJST/v15i31.1352
-
Syach, U., & Edi, S. W. M. (2024). Perancangan Aplikasi Web Manajemen Data Produk Bisnis Perhiasan Berbasis Flask Dan Mongodb. IT-Explore: Jurnal Penerapan Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi, 3(2), 162-176. https://doi.org/10.24246/itexplore.v3i2.2024.pp162-176.
-
-
-
-
Mutmainnah, A., Musyrifah, M., & Zulkarnaim, N. (2022). Perbandingan Relational Database dan Non-Relational Database dalam Pengembangan Smart Tourism. Jurnal Teknik Informatika dan Sistem Informasi, 8(1), 150-160. https://doi.org/10.28932/jutisi.v8i1.4353
-
-
Kazanavičius, J., Mažeika, D., & Kalibatienė, D. (2022, June). An approach to migrate a monolith database into multi‐model polyglot persistence based on microservice architecture: A case study for mainframe database. Applied Sciences, 12(12), Article 6189. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12126189
-
Thapa, A. B. (2022). Optimizing MongoDB performance with indexing–Practices of indexing in MongoDB [Bachelor's thesis, Degree programme in Information and Communications Technology]. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2022061317593.
-
Tallberg, S. (2020). A comparison of data ingestion platforms in real-time stream processing pipelines [Master's thesis, Mälardalen University]. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2020081048285
-
Easwaramoorthy, S. V., Yun Xuan, K. O., Putra, L., Ern, N. C., & Sheng, T. J. (2025, January). Comparative study on Oracle, Neo4J, Cassandra, Redis, and MongoDB. Information Research Communications, 1(2), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.5530/irc.1.2.13
-
-
Levin, S. M. (2024, April). Unleashing real-time analytics: A comparative study of in-memory computing vs. traditional disk-based systems. Brazilian Journal of Science, 3(5), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.14295/bjs.v3i5.553
-
Pandey, R. (2020). Performance benchmarking and comparison of cloud-based databases MongoDB (NoSQL) vs MySQL (Relational) using YCSB. Nat. College Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, Tech. Rep. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10789.32484
-
Nuriev, M., Zaripova, R., Yanova, O., Koshkina, I., & Chupaev, A. (2024, June). Enhancing MongoDB query performance through index optimization. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 531, Article 03022). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202453103022
-
Zhu, Y., Xia, T., Zhu, T., Zhao, Z., Li, K., & Hu, X. (2025). RAPO: An Automated Performance Optimization Tool for Redis Clusters in Distributed Storage Metadata Management. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3556240
-
Al Maamari, S. R. S., & Nasar, M. (2025, April). A comparative analysis of NoSQL and SQL databases: Performance, consistency, and suitability for modern applications with a focus on IoT. East Journal of Computer Science, 1(2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.63496/ejcs.Vol1.Iss2.76
-

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Copyright Retention and Open Access License
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal non-exclusive right of first publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. Rights Granted Under CC BY 4.0
Under this license, readers are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use
- No additional restrictions — the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as license terms are followed
3. Attribution Requirements
All uses must include:
- Proper citation of the original work
- Link to the Creative Commons license
- Indication if changes were made to the original work
- No suggestion that the licensor endorses the user or their use
4. Additional Distribution Rights
Authors may:
- Deposit the published version in institutional repositories
- Share through academic social networks
- Include in books, monographs, or other publications
- Post on personal or institutional websites
Requirement: All additional distributions must maintain the CC BY 4.0 license and proper attribution.
5. Self-Archiving and Pre-Print Sharing
Authors are encouraged to:
- Share pre-prints and post-prints online
- Deposit in subject-specific repositories (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv)
- Engage in scholarly communication throughout the publication process
6. Open Access Commitment
This journal provides immediate open access to all content, supporting the global exchange of knowledge without financial, legal, or technical barriers.