incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From aaron morton <>
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
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. 

Aaron Morton
Freelance Cassandra Consultant
New Zealand


On 17/04/2013, at 2:56 PM, Jabbar Azam <> wrote:

> MySQL cluster also has the index in ram.  So with lots of rows the ram becomes a limiting
> That's what my colleague found and hence why were sticking with Cassandra.
> On 16 Apr 2013 21:05, "horschi" <> 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

View raw message