Hi, I'm always interessted in such benchmark experiments, because the databases evolve so fast, that the race is always open and there is a lot motion in there.
And of course I askes myself the same question. And I think that this publication is unreliable. For 4 reasons (from reading very fast, perhaps there is more): 1.) It is unclear what this is all about. The title is "NoSQL Performance Testing". The subtitle is "In-Memory Performance Comparison of SequoiaDB, Cassandra, and MongoDB". However, in the introduction there is not one word about "in memory performance". The introduction could be a general introduction for a general "on-disk-nosql" benchmark. So ... only the subtitle (and a short sentence in the "Result Summary") says what this is actually about. 2.) There are very important databases missing. For "in memory" e.g. redis. If e.g. redis is not a valid candidate in this race, why is this so?MySQL is capable of "in memory" distributed databanking, too. 3.) The methodology is unclear. Perhaps I'm the only one, but what does "Run workload for 30 minutes (workload file workload[1-5]) " mean for mixed read/write ops? Why 30 min? Okay, I can image, that the authors estimated the throughput, preset the number of 100 Mio rows and designed it to be larger than the estimated throughput in x minutes. However, all this information is missing. And why 45% and 22% of RAM? My first Idea would be a VERY low ration, like 2% or so, and a VERY large ratio, like 80-90%. And than everything in between. Is 22% or 45% somehow a magic number? Furthermore in the Result summary there 1/2 and 1/4 of RAM are discussed. Okay, 22% is near 1/4 ... but where does the difference origin from? And btw. ... 22% of what? Stuff to insert? Stuff already insererted? It's all deductable, but it's strange that the description is so sloppy. 4.) There is no repetion of the loads (as I understand). Its one run, one result ... and it's done. I don't know a lot of cassandra in in-memory use. But either the experiment should be repeated quite some runs OR it should be explained why this is not neccessary. Okay, perhaps 1 is a little picky, and 4 is a little fussy. But 3 is strange and 2 stinks. Well, just my first impression. And that's Cassandra is very fast ;). Best regards Wilm Am 19.12.2014 um 06:41 schrieb diwayou: > i just have read this benchmark pdf, does anyone have some opinion > about this? > i think it's not fair about cassandra > url:http://www.bankmark.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bankmark-20141201-WP-NoSQLBenchmark.pdf > http://msrg.utoronto.ca/papers/NoSQLBenchmark >
