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 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 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! >> > On paper mysql-cluster looks great. But in daily use its not as nice as > Cassandra (where you have machines dying, networks splitting, etc.). > > cheers, > Christian >
