incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com>
Subject Re: MySQL Cluster performing faster than Cassandra cluster on single table
Date Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:09:41 GMT
How many threads / processes do you have performing the writes? 
How big are the mutations ? 
Where are you measuring the latency ? 

Look at the nodetool cfhistograms to see the time it takes for a single node to perform a
write. 
Look at the nodetool proxyhistograms to see the end to end request latency from the coordinator.

^ the number on the left is microseconds for both. 

Generally cassandra does well with more clients. 

Cheers
 
-----------------
Aaron Morton
Freelance Cassandra Consultant
New Zealand

@aaronmorton
http://www.thelastpickle.com

On 17/04/2013, at 2:56 PM, Jabbar Azam <ajazam@gmail.com> wrote:

> MySQL cluster also has the index in ram.  So with lots of rows the ram becomes a limiting
factor.
> 
> That's what my colleague found and hence why were sticking with Cassandra.
> 
> On 16 Apr 2013 21:05, "horschi" <horschi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?
> It stores bloom filters and index-samples in memory. But they are much smaller than the
actual data and they can be configured.
>  
> 
> 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!
> On paper mysql-cluster looks great. But in daily use its not as nice as Cassandra (where
you have machines dying, networks splitting, etc.).
> 
> cheers,
> Christian


Mime
View raw message