cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jrdn hannah <>
Subject Re: MySQL Cluster performing faster than Cassandra cluster on single table
Date Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:43:29 GMT
Ah, I see, that makes sense. Have you got a source for the storing of hundreds of gigabytes?
And does Cassandra not store anything in memory?

Yeah, my dataset is small at the moment - perhaps I should have chosen something larger for
the work I'm doing (University dissertation), however, it is far too late to change now!

Thanks for the help,

On 16 Apr 2013, at 12:16, horschi <> wrote:

> Hi Hannah,
> mysql-cluster is a in-memory database.
> In-memory is fast. But I dont think you ever be able to store hundreds of Gigabytes of
data on a node, which is something you can do with Cassandra.
> If your dataset is small, then maybe NDB is the better choice for you. I myself will
not even touch it with stick any more, I hate it with a passion. But this might depend on
the use-case :-)
> regards,
> Christian
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, jrdn hannah <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was wondering if anybody here had any insight into this.
> I was running some tests on cassandra and mysql performance, with a two node and three
node cassandra cluster, and a five node mysql cluster (mgmt, 2 x api, 2 x data).
> On the cassandra 2 node cluster vs mysql cluster, I was getting a couple of strange results.
For example, on updating a single table in MySQL, with the equivalent super column in Cassandra,
I was getting results of 0.231 ms for MySQL and 1.248ms for Cassandra to perform the update
1000 times.
> Could anybody help explain why this is the case?
> Thanks,
> Hannah

View raw message