3 ms·

Cassandra 1.0: 400% read performance improvement

125 points by tjake 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
stuhood 15y ago
Two points that are specified but somewhat hidden in the article: 1) the 400% number is between Cassandra 0.6 and Cassandra 1.0, 2) the test is CPU bound because the dataset fits very easily in memory. A lot of awesome work has gone into Cassandra 1.0: many thanks to the Datastax team.
- whackberry 15y ago
  I'd just like to add Fuck Datastax to that otherwise great comment.
cowholio4 15y ago
I'm sure the Reddit admins appreciate this. :D
- Joakal 15y ago
  So does Digg. I wonder how they are going to pivot after all that drama.
  - whackberry 15y ago
    They won't pivot. Digg sucks.
whackberry 15y ago
Cassandra is way underrated. It is a great advance in DBRMS, just not relational. I've put it to great use and it's an amazing database system. Searching is badly needed, regular expression searching by column values would make it kick Oracle`s ass anytime.
- Joakal 15y ago
  https://github.com/tjake/Solandra https://github.com/tjake/Solandra
  - whackberry 15y ago
    Used that. Not Cassandra, but a very nice application of it.
  - fizx 15y ago
    Unfortunately it benchmarks 20-40x slower than stock Solr. If that wasn't the case, I'd use it in a heartbeat.
- swah 15y ago
  For an outsider, its hard to understand whats up w/ Cassandra versus HBase. Then you read companies X, Y and Z are moving to HBase, and it almost feels like the project is "just not any good anymore". EDIT: I think the fallacy of my reasoning is thinking of Apache as a company which wouldn't spend resources on two similar things.
  - stonemetal 15y ago
    From what I understand HBase is a little more feature complete. It has row locking built in for instance. Cassandra really can't do that by the very nature of how it is designed(fully peer to peer, no zookeeper). On the other hand Cassandra is really easy to get going, just download a build and double click. Hbase requires zookeeper and hadoop\hdfs before you can get it running as such it is more complicated and the config is a bit more squirrelly. It really is MySQL vs Postgresql all over again.

125 points by tjake 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Two points that are specified but somewhat hidden in the article: 1) the 400% number is between Cassandra 0.6 and Cassandra 1.0, 2) the test is CPU bound because the dataset fits very easily in memory. A lot of awesome work has gone into Cassandra 1.0: many thanks to the Datastax team.

whackberry 15y ago
I'd just like to add Fuck Datastax to that otherwise great comment.

cowholio4 15y ago

I'm sure the Reddit admins appreciate this. :D

Joakal 15y ago
So does Digg. I wonder how they are going to pivot after all that drama.
- whackberry 15y ago
  They won't pivot. Digg sucks.

whackberry 15y ago

Cassandra is way underrated. It is a great advance in DBRMS, just not relational. I've put it to great use and it's an amazing database system. Searching is badly needed, regular expression searching by column values would make it kick Oracle`s ass anytime.

Joakal 15y ago
https://github.com/tjake/Solandra https://github.com/tjake/Solandra
- whackberry 15y ago
  Used that. Not Cassandra, but a very nice application of it.
- fizx 15y ago
  Unfortunately it benchmarks 20-40x slower than stock Solr. If that wasn't the case, I'd use it in a heartbeat.
swah 15y ago
For an outsider, its hard to understand whats up w/ Cassandra versus HBase. Then you read companies X, Y and Z are moving to HBase, and it almost feels like the project is "just not any good anymore". EDIT: I think the fallacy of my reasoning is thinking of Apache as a company which wouldn't spend resources on two similar things.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  From what I understand HBase is a little more feature complete. It has row locking built in for instance. Cassandra really can't do that by the very nature of how it is designed(fully peer to peer, no zookeeper). On the other hand Cassandra is really easy to get going, just download a build and double click. Hbase requires zookeeper and hadoop\hdfs before you can get it running as such it is more complicated and the config is a bit more squirrelly. It really is MySQL vs Postgresql all over again.