Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 73877 invoked from network); 13 May 2010 17:46:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 13 May 2010 17:46:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 75553 invoked by uid 500); 13 May 2010 17:46:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 75530 invoked by uid 500); 13 May 2010 17:46:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 75522 invoked by uid 99); 13 May 2010 17:46:32 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 May 2010 17:46:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of schildmeijer@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.221 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.221] (HELO mail-ew0-f221.google.com) (209.85.219.221) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 May 2010 17:46:23 +0000 Received: by ewy21 with SMTP id 21so535075ewy.5 for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 10:46:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:mime-version :content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to:to:references:message-id :x-mailer; bh=bjK2AOSaobiGLIIo4AWHbsb8d2Zb0vySt9OSLNyIazQ=; b=Tn8d72FUi+x4Dqvb3UOMgUw4dG2I9FInPj/PCFLJSZ36Me4f33qYG0LABh50Tev4xS 5QKP3s7dmI5seFv0xGIE10iiRlPw23MNgiiKBm3uyCvEUc0OA/WKh/q6496aZ4C+IXNW g0s+WfqI4R/zI/w/gPQXti123lAgj8X0ofglg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:mime-version:content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to:to :references:message-id:x-mailer; b=vl5qtKPJa8xnFeQ1aBsS5/bEFhk7UOhb3VOLAo7f52Qb4niY7Aj54d0hibsHtlAiwY 5IbRRRDYmIpujB4Mi915jehn7uvPUC/GeE43J/dweslrODpIKDtaY6NzETZvF5YQH56h m5nfz/xoNM+65Ha4TtPrehRToBLlbTi7e7j20= Received: by 10.213.65.74 with SMTP id h10mr1524859ebi.60.1273772763552; Thu, 13 May 2010 10:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.36] (90-229-249-227-no34.tbcn.telia.com [90.229.249.227]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 13sm809030ewy.1.2010.05.13.10.46.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 13 May 2010 10:46:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger Schildmeijer Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8--887182525 Subject: Re: how does cassandra compare with mongodb? Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:46:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: To: user@cassandra.apache.org References: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Apple-Mail-8--887182525 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In a perfect world there should be (aiming for) a new major Cassandra = release every 2-3 months. // Roger Schildmeijer=20 On 13 maj 2010, at 19.43em, Sandeep Kalidindi wrote: > Any idea about how far the 0.7 release is ?? >=20 > Cheers, > Deepu. >=20 > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:52 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." >=20 > This is changing in 0.7 >=20 > Regards, > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Jonathan Shook = wrote: > You can choose to have keys ordered by using an > OrderPreservingPartioner with the trade-off that key ranges can get > denser on certain nodes than others. >=20 > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 PM, philip andrew = wrote: > > > > Hi, > > =46rom my understanding, Cassandra entities are indexed on only one = key, so > > this can be a problem if you are searching for example by two values = such as > > if you are storing an entity with a x,y then wish to search for = entities in > > a box ie x>5 and x<10 and y>5 and y<10. MongoDB can do this, = Cassandra > > cannot due to only indexing on one key. > > Cassandra can scale automatically just by adding nodes, almost = infinite > > storage easily, MongoDB requires database administration to add = nodes, > > setting up replication or allowing sharding, but not too complex. > > MongoDB requires you to create sharded keys if you want to scale > > horizontally, Cassandra just works automatically for scale = horizontally. > > Cassandra requires the schema to be defined before the database = starts, > > MongoDB can have any schema at run-time just like a normal database. > > In the end I choose MongoDB as I require more indexes than Cassandra > > provides, although I really like Cassandras ability to store almost = infinite > > amount of data just by adding nodes. > > Thanks, Phil > > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:57 AM, S Ahmed = wrote: > >> > >> I tried searching mail-archive, but the search feature is a bit = wacky (or > >> more probably I don't know how to use it). > >> What are the key differences between Cassandra and Mongodb? > >> Is there a particular use case where each solution shines? > > >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-8--887182525 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii In a perfect world there should be (aiming for) a new major Cassandra release every 2-3 months.

// Roger Schildmeijer 


On 13 maj 2010, at 19.43em, Sandeep Kalidindi wrote:

Any idea about how far the 0.7 release is ??

Cheers,
Deepu.

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Vijay <vijay2win@gmail.com> 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>




On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Jonathan Shook <jshook@gmail.com> wrote:
You can choose to have keys ordered by using an
OrderPreservingPartioner with the trade-off that key ranges can get
denser on certain nodes than others.

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 PM, philip andrew <philip142au@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> From my understanding, Cassandra entities are indexed on only one key, so
> this can be a problem if you are searching for example by two values such as
> if you are storing an entity with a x,y then wish to search for entities in
> a box ie x>5 and x<10 and y>5 and y<10. MongoDB can do this, Cassandra
> cannot due to only indexing on one key.
> Cassandra can scale automatically just by adding nodes, almost infinite
> storage easily, MongoDB requires database administration to add nodes,
> setting up replication or allowing sharding, but not too complex.
> MongoDB requires you to create sharded keys if you want to scale
> horizontally, Cassandra just works automatically for scale horizontally.
> Cassandra requires the schema to be defined before the database starts,
> MongoDB can have any schema at run-time just like a normal database.
> In the end I choose MongoDB as I require more indexes than Cassandra
> provides, although I really like Cassandras ability to store almost infinite
> amount of data just by adding nodes.
> Thanks, Phil
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:57 AM, S Ahmed <sahmed1020@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I tried searching mail-archive, but the search feature is a bit wacky (or
>> more probably I don't know how to use it).
>> What are the key differences between Cassandra and Mongodb?
>> Is there a particular use case where each solution shines?
>



--Apple-Mail-8--887182525--