How many threads / processes do you have performing the writes?
How big are the mutations ?
Where are you measuring the latency ?
Look at the nodetool cfhistograms to see the time it takes for a single node to
perform a write.
Look at the nodetool proxyhistograms to see the end to end
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
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
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
Yeah, I remember reading about that, but the schema had already been set and
submitted. I will have to take that into consideration when discussing the
results.
Thanks,
Hannah
On 16 Apr 2013, at 17:42, Robert Coli rc...@eventbrite.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:56 AM, jrdn hannah
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:56 AM, jrdn hannah j...@jrdnhannah.co.uk wrote:
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.
You probably do
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?
It stores bloom filters and index-samples in memory. But they are much
smaller than the actual data and they can be configured.
Yeah, my dataset is
MySQL cluster also has the index in ram. So with lots of rows the ram
becomes a limiting factor.
That's what my colleague found and hence why were sticking with Cassandra.
On 16 Apr 2013 21:05, horschi hors...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I see, that makes sense. Have you got a source for the
