cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From philip andrew <>
Subject Re: how does cassandra compare with mongodb?
Date Fri, 14 May 2010 00:10:56 GMT
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.

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Steve Lihn <> wrote:

> What is changing? A more flexible schema or no need to restart (some kind
> of hot-reboot)?
> Mongo guys claims that Mongo's advantage is a schema-less design. Basically
> you can have any data structure you want and you can change them anyway you
> want. This is done in the name of "flexibility", but I am not sure this is a
> good practice. People argued for years that perl is bad because it is
> typeless and java is strong typed and is better. Now the java community is
> developing a database like Mongo that is schema-less. How does this
> complements the strong-type argument?
> The less requirement is put on database schema design, the more burden is
> put on the application to maintain data integrity. Why is this a good trend?
> Can someone kindly explain?
> Steve
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Vijay <> wrote:
>> "Cassandra requires the schema to be defined before the database starts,
>> MongoDB can have any schema at run-time just like a normal database."
>> This is changing in 0.7
>> Regards,
>> </VJ>

View raw message