* Higher write throughput is one benefit. User enrollment, auditing, keeping track of client state and replication all generate a fair number of writes which degrades postgres performance.
* Built in clustering. Postgres clustering is immature and even when things start to settle down, probably next year, we will still be left with a cluster that can only provide us with single master write. Right now we have our own clustering tech which has it's plusses and minus; the minuses being that we have to maintain the code and even though our clustering works fairly well it's not our core competency. * Lower cost of deployment. In order to scale postgres you need fast disk solutions and allot of memory. If we were to switch to another database (Oracle, DB2) the cost of deployment goes up even further. With cassandra we can use commodity hardware. * Map/reduce will be in 0.6, allowing us to better distribute jobs such as key maintenance which is fairly expensive computationally. * Postgres can't scale well to the demands of our largest customers. We need to rejigger our storage architecture anyways, so now is a good time to look at what Cassandra can offer. On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Joe Van Dyk wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Matthew Stump <mrevilgn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Am I crazy to want to switch our server's primary data store from postgres to > cassandra? This is a system used by banks and governments to store crypto > keys which absolutely can not be lost. What benefits would you get from switching? Joe
