3 ms·
A more apples-to-apples comparison with Cassandra would be FaunaDB transactions and Cassandra's atomic batch mutations, or its PAXOS-based lightweight transacti
by freels 10y ago
A more apples-to-apples comparison with Cassandra would be FaunaDB transactions and Cassandra's atomic batch mutations, or its PAXOS-based lightweight transactions as opposed to single-cell writes tested in most Cassandra benchmarks.
YMMV, but we've found the performance of Cassandra writing out similar-sized multi-row atomic batches at QUORUM to be similar in this hardware configuration.
FaunaDB transactions are quite a bit more powerful, as they can span multiple keys, use conditionals and read-modify-write logic, and still resolve with serializable semantics.
- web007 10y agoThat makes a lot more sense then. It's still a misleading statement to say "writes" vs "transactions" since you could (potentially) make fewer writes and support more transactions. The ratio between the two is a measure of efficiency, but only transactions matter to end-users.
- evanweaver 10y agoYou're right that one number trades off another. I'm not sure that only transactions matters, though. Tracking logical writes makes the test comparable to tests of key-value stores that can only update one key at time, which is pretty much every other distributed database.