cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <...@holsman.net>
Subject Re: Advise for choice
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:25:58 GMT
things positive for solr.
- mature and stable
- lots of documentation
- a swiss army knife and can be used for a LOT of things, especially if you are manipulating
a lot of text.
- the query language is easier to use (imho.. but i've been using solr for years, so I am
biased)
- lots of people know it
- fast caching
- faceting

cons for solr.
- hard to update a single field (you need to fetch & re-insert the entire row)
- commits/optimizes can slow things down to a crawl
- can't store structured data easily. (for example a blog post has tags which have both a
key and a value).
- scalability isn't as easy as cassandra. sharding works, but it requires a lot of manual
effort
- it's easy to get started and get something running, but if you need to do something out
of the ordinary, it gets hard fast. I think cassandra is more flexible to do ordinary things
that don't involve text-matching.
- replication isn't instant. (this is changing.. also look at zoie which may help).

of course, if you tell us what your trying to do, I can be more specific.
FWIW.. we use SOLR for some of our news-content (see love.com and newsrunner.com) and it works
fast enough for us. 
We have a incoming doc rate of about 8-10 news articles/second.

On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:43 AM, Nathan McCall wrote:

> Agreed that there is not much to go on here in the original question.
> I will say that we very recently found a good fit with Solr and
> Cassandra in how we deal with a very heavy write volume of news
> article data. Cassandra is excellent with write throughput and high
> availability, but our search use cases are with time-dependent news
> content, so we need lots of term proximity, faceting and ordering
> functionality.
> 
> We probably could store everything in Solr, but the above approach
> will allow us to make articles immediately available in a
> fault-tolerant manner while being able to efficiently send batches at
> regular intervals to Solr and therefore scale out our ingestion of
> news articles a little smoother. Full disclosure: I am still getting
> my head around the innards of Solr replication and clustering, but so
> far I feel like we made a good choice.
> 
> Hopefully the above will be helpful to folks during their evaluations.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Nate
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Joseph Bowman <bowman.joseph@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have to agree with Tatu. If you're struggling to find reasons to validate
>> that Cassandra is the better choice for your task than Solr, then perhaps
>> Solr is the correct choice. I kind of went through the same thing recently,
>> struggled to make Cassandra fit what I was doing, then realized I was doing
>> it wrong and moved to MongoDB.
>> Cassandra is great at what it tries to accomplish, which is managing
>> gigantic datasets in a distributed way. The question is, is that really what
>> you need?
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Richard Grossman <richiesgr@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> This message is little different than support.
>>>> I'm confronted to problem where people want to change Cassandra with
>>>> Solr
>>>> server. I really think that our problem is a great case for cassandra
>>>> but I
>>>> need more arguments.
>>>> 
>>>> So please if you've some time just put some idea why to use cassandra
>>>> instead solr.
>>> 
>>> Solution is generally applicable to a problem... so what is the (main) use
>>> case?
>>> 
>>> That would make it easier to find arguments for or against proposed
>>> solution.
>>> 
>>> -+ Tatu +-
>> 
>> 

--
Ian Holsman
Ian@Holsman.net




Mime
View raw message