I am aware of no benchmark that shows the binary driver to be faster then thrift. Yes. Theoretically a driver that with multiplex *should be* faster in *some* cases. However I have never seen any evidence to back up this theory anecdotal or otherwise.

In fact....

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Derek Williams <derek@fyrie.net> wrote:
The binary protocol is able to multiplex multiple requests using a single connection, which can lead to much better performance (similar to HTTP vs SPDY). This is without comparing the performance of thrift vs binary protocol, which I assume the binary protocol would be faster since it is specialized for cassandra requests.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Renato Marroquín Mogrovejo <renatoj.marroquin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Shamim,

Why do you say that Java-Driver has better performance over Hector or
Astyanax? Is there any reasons for this?

Renato M.

2013/5/5 Shamim <srecon@yandex.ru>:
> Hi,
>   Astyanax is just a refactoring of Hector and implements a few common cassandra use cases. Very easy to use api. In Astyanax you will found all the functions from hector. For better performance you can also check datastax java driver https://github.com/datastax/java-driver.
> There are another lightweight client from twitter https://github.com/twitter/cassie
> --
> Best regards
>   Shamim A.
> 05.05.2013, 05:30, "李 晗" <bjbylh@me.com>:
>> hello,
>> i want to know which cassandra client is better?
>> and what are their advantages and disadvantages?
>> thanks

Derek Williams