This is not really a comparison of anything because each NoSQL has its own
bullet points like:
Boats
great for traveling on water
Cars
great for traveling on land
So the conclusion I should gather is?
Also as for the Cassandra bullet points, they are really thin (and wrong).
Such as:
Cassandra:
Best used: When you write more than you read (logging). If every component
of the system must be in Java. ("No one gets fired for choosing Apache's
stuff.")
I view that as:
Nonsensical, inaccurate, and anecdotal.
Also I notice on the other side (and not trying to pick on hbase, but)
hbase:
No single point of failure
Random access performance is like MySQL
Hbase has several SPOF's, its random access performance is definitely NOT
'like mysql',
Cassandra ACTUALLY has no SPOF but as they author mentions, he/she does not
like Cassandra so that fact was left out.
>From what I can see of the writeup, it is obviously inaccurate in numerous
places (without even reading the entire thing).
Also when comparing these technologies very subtle differences in design
have profound in effects in operation and performance. Thus someone trying
to paper over 6 technologies and compare them with a few bullet points is
really doing the world an injustice.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Igor Lino <icampi...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I was trying to get an understanding of the real strengths of Cassandra
> against other competitors. Its actually not that simple and depends a lot
> on details on the actual requirements.
>
> Reading the following comparison:
> http://kkovacs.eu/cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis
>
> It felt like the description of Cassandra painted a limiting picture of
> its capabilities. Is there any Cassandra expert that could improve that
> summary? is there any important thing missing? or is there a more fitting
> common use case for Cassandra than what Mr. Kovacs has given?
> (I believe/think that a Cassandra expert can improve that generic
> description)
>
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
>
>
>
