Cassandra is not designed to work memory-only. It's designed designed to use disk for durability and to accommodate using large sets of data, letting the OS use memory as a huge cache for that. For typical data use patterns (where a relatively small amount is "hot") this will be a much better use of hardware than memory-only.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM, lichun li <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you! > The "how fast is it" section says:"In a nutshell, Cassandra is much > faster than relational databases, and much slower than memory-only > systems or systems that don't sync each update to disk." > Can Cassandra work in a memory-only mode? Can it be done by just > changing configuration? > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Jonathan Ellis <[email protected]> wrote: >> We're basically in a roll-your-own benchmark state. Johan can >> probably give some pointers: >> http://blog.oskarsson.nu/2009/05/vpork.html. Also see the "how fast >> is it" section here: >> http://spyced.blogspot.com/2009/05/cassandra-03-release-candidate-and.html >> >> -Jonathan >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:06 AM, lichun li <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I can't find cassandra's performance data, such as throughput. Does >>> anyone know where to find these data? >>> >>> -- >>> Sincerely yours, >>> >>> Lichun Li >>> Mobile Life New Media Lab, BUPT >>> >> > > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > > Lichun Li > Mobile Life New Media Lab, BUPT >
