cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Lihn <>
Subject Re: how does cassandra compare with mongodb?
Date Fri, 14 May 2010 02:31:45 GMT
Not sure how to comment on this concept. I guess it infers that the database
and application are no longer loosely coupled, but now strongly coupled.
I guess too, that java developers will vote yes, while database architect
and DBA will vote no.

In the "traditional" sense, enterprise data is the soul of a business. Data
has to stand by itself with reasonable information (primary key and foreign
key) to interpret itself. But it appears now with the Mongo approach, the
data store (I won't even call it database) is a byproduct of the mapping
class. Without reading the mapping classes, one can barely understand the
data. How is this going to be accepted by large enterprises? I put a big
question mark on it.

On top of it, if you follow Hibernate's suggestion of using numeric as
primary keys, your data will be as cryptic as hell.

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:10 PM, philip andrew <>wrote:

> MongoDB encourages you to define your schema in your application code by
> using mapping classes. This logically infers that it makes no sense to
> define the schema twice, in the database and in your application code.

View raw message