cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From CharSyam <>
Subject Re: improving cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis
Date Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:41:35 GMT
Don't trust NoSQL Benchmark. It's not a lie. but. NoSQL has different
performance in many different environment.

Do Benchmark with your real environment. and choose it.

Thank you.

2011/12/28 Igor Lino <>

> 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 like:
>    Boats
>      great for traveling on water
>    Cars
>      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:
>    Cassandra:
>    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)
>    hbase:
>    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:
>        Hi!
>        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 given?
>        (I believe/think that a Cassandra expert can improve that generic
> description)
>        Thanks,
>        Igor

View raw message