I’ve supported a variety of different “big data” systems and most have their own particular set of use cases that make sense. Having said that, I believe that Cassandra uniquely excels at the following:
* Low write latency with respect to small to medium write sizes (logs, sensor data, etc.) * Linear write scalability * Fault-tolerance across geographic locations The first two points makes it an excellent candidate for high-throughput “transactional” systems. Other systems that play in this space tend to be HBase and Riak (there may be others, but I’m most familiar with those two). However, the last point is pretty unique to Cassandra. So if you’re looking for a high-scale out, high-throughput transactional system then Cassandra may make sense for you. If you’re looking for something more geared towards analytics (so few bulk writes, many reads), then something in the Hadoop space may make sense. Cheers James On Jul 4, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Prem Yadav <ipremya...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Manoj. Great post for those who already have Cassandra in production. > However it brings me back to my original post. > All the points you have mentioned apply to any big data technology. > Storage- All of them > Query- All of them. In fact lot of them perform better. Agree that CQL > structure is better. But hive,mongo all good > Availability- many of them > > So my question is basically to Cassandra support people e.g.- Datastax Or the > developers. > What makes Cassandra special. > If I have to convince my CTO to spend million dollars on a cluster and > support, his first question would be why Cassandra? Why not this or that? > > So I still am not sure about what special Cassandra brings to the table? > > Sorry about the rant. But in the enterprise world, decisions are taken based > on taking into account the stability, convincing managers and what not. > Chosen technology has to be stable for years. People should be convinced that > the engineers are not going to do a lot of firefighting. > > Any inputs appreciated. > > > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Manoj Khangaonkar <khangaon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > These are my personal opinions based on few months using Cassandra. These are > my views. Others > may have different opinion > > > http://khangaonkar.blogspot.com/2014/06/apache-cassandra-things-to-consider.html > > regards > > > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Prem Yadav <ipremya...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I have seen this in a lot of replies that Cassandra is not designed for this > and that. I don't want to sound rude, i just need some info about this so > that i can compare it to technologies like hbase, mongo, elasticsearch, solr, > etc. > > 1) what is Cassandra designed for. Heave writes yes. So is Hbase. Or > ElasticSearch > What is the use case(s) that suit Cassandra. > > 2) What kind of queries are best suited for Cassandra. > I ask this Because I have seen people asking about queries and getting > replies that its not suited for Cassandra. For ex: queries where large number > of rows are requested and timeout happens. Or range queries or aggregate > queries. > > 3) Where does Cassandra excel compared to other technologies? > > I have been working on Casandra for some time. I know how it works and I like > it very much. > We are moving towards building a big cluster. But at this point, I am not > sure if its a right decision. > > A lot of people including me like Cassandra in my company. But it has more to > do with the CQL and not the internals or the use cases. Until now, there have > been small PoCs and people enjoyed it. But a large scale project, we are not > so sure. > > Please guide us. > Please note that the drawbacks of other technologies do not interest me, its > the strengths/weaknesses of Cassandra I am interested in. > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://khangaonkar.blogspot.com/ >
