4 ms·
If you read the way tutorials pitch CQL, you will assume it's replacing SQL. But once you understand how it works, no it's not replacing SQL. Edit: We actuall
by tdfx 12y ago
If you read the way tutorials pitch CQL, you will assume it's replacing SQL. But once you understand how it works, no it's not replacing SQL.
Edit: We actually use Cassandra and have found it to be an outstanding solution for our use case. But I feel like CQL's superficial similarity to SQL leads many to confusion until you dig into how it works.
- ddorian43 12y agoIt's because i've read them, and I know they suck(feature-wise). It's like mongodb all over again (replace your rdbms).
- skyebook 12y agoI honestly don't recall seeing much, if any, evangelism to the extremes of "hey you don't need a relational database anymore" as it relates to Cassandra. Talks I've seen have generally focused on using it as a tool to fit a specific niche/do something that the existing RDBMS wasn't optimal for. Disclosure: C* User
- ddorian43 12y agoAbout the talks, yeah. There is no one talking about how we replaced our rdbms (except where they were using the rdbms as kv or something similar like reddit), because it isn't possible.
- nemo44x 12y agoThe fact there is an UPDATE statement that is actually an INSERT is clever, but possibly misleading to many users. The design is for insert only so you hate to see syntax that is actually a different semantic.