cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Igor Lino" <>
Subject Re: improving cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis
Date Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:00:37 GMT
You are totally right. I'm far from being an expert on the subject, but the comparison felt
inconsistent and incomplete. (I could not express that in my 1st email, not to bias the opinion)
Do you know of any similar comparison, which is not biased towards some particular technology
or solution?   (so not coming from
I want to understand how superior is Cassandra in its latest release against closer competitors,
ideally with the opinion from expert guys.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Edward Capriolo <> wrote:

    This is not really a comparison of anything because each NoSQL has its own bullet points
      great for traveling on water
      great for traveling on land
    So the conclusion I should gather is?
    Also as for the Cassandra bullet points, they are really thin (and wrong). Such as:
    Best used: When you write more than you read (logging). If every component of the system
must be in Java. ("No one gets fired for choosing Apache's stuff.")
    I view that as:
    Nonsensical, inaccurate, and anecdotal.  
    Also I notice on the other side (and not trying to pick on hbase, but)
    No single point of failure 
    Random access performance is like MySQL 
    Hbase has several SPOF's, its random access performance is definitely NOT 'like mysql',

    Cassandra ACTUALLY has no SPOF but as they author mentions, he/she does not like Cassandra
so that fact was left out.
    From what I can see of the writeup, it is obviously inaccurate in numerous places (without
even reading the entire thing).
    Also when comparing these technologies very subtle differences in design have profound
in effects in operation and performance. Thus someone trying to paper over 6 technologies
and compare them with a few bullet points is really doing the world an injustice.
    On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Igor Lino <> wrote:


        I was trying to get an understanding of the real strengths of Cassandra against other
competitors. Its actually not that simple and depends a lot on details on the actual requirements.

        Reading the following comparison:

        It felt like the description of Cassandra painted a limiting picture of its capabilities.
Is there any Cassandra expert that could improve that summary? is there any important thing
missing? or is there a more fitting common use case for Cassandra than what Mr. Kovacs has
        (I believe/think that a Cassandra expert can improve that generic description)


View raw message