Ah, I see, that makes sense. Have you got a source for the storing of hundreds of gigabytes? And does Cassandra not store anything in memory?
Yeah, my dataset is small at the moment - perhaps I should have chosen something larger for the work I'm doing (University dissertation), however, it is far too late to change now! Thanks for the help, Hannah On 16 Apr 2013, at 12:16, horschi <hors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Hannah, > > mysql-cluster is a in-memory database. > > In-memory is fast. But I dont think you ever be able to store hundreds of > Gigabytes of data on a node, which is something you can do with Cassandra. > > If your dataset is small, then maybe NDB is the better choice for you. I > myself will not even touch it with stick any more, I hate it with a passion. > But this might depend on the use-case :-) > > regards, > Christian > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, jrdn hannah <j...@jrdnhannah.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if anybody here had any insight into this. > > I was running some tests on cassandra and mysql performance, with a two node > and three node cassandra cluster, and a five node mysql cluster (mgmt, 2 x > api, 2 x data). > > On the cassandra 2 node cluster vs mysql cluster, I was getting a couple of > strange results. For example, on updating a single table in MySQL, with the > equivalent super column in Cassandra, I was getting results of 0.231 ms for > MySQL and 1.248ms for Cassandra to perform the update 1000 times. > > Could anybody help explain why this is the case? > > Thanks, > Hannah >
