Great thread -- thanks for pointing it out!
I was referencing consistency without considering durability but that is
probably something that should not be overlooked, or if it is, as you
suggested, be overlooked as a conscious decision to take on risk.
2010/5/14 Peter Schüller
> > Not sure if
Thanks for pointing this out. My fault in thinking Mongo is another
java-based database, which I will probably realize wrong when I attend the
mongo conference in a week.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:45 AM, David Strauss wrote:
> On 2010-05-13 19:48, Steve Lihn wrote:
> > Now the java community is d
> Not sure if this was mentioned, but MongoDB is strongly consistent while
> Cassandra is eventually consistent -- at least about a month ago when I
> looked at it in more detail, though with vector clocks in 0.7, this may be
> less of an issue.
Did Mongo switch away from the "fsync() every now an
On 2010-05-13 19:48, Steve Lihn wrote:
> Now the java community is developing a database like Mongo that is
> schema-less.
Mongo is written in C++.
--
David Strauss
| da...@fourkitchens.com
Four Kitchens
| http://fourkitchens.com
| +1 512 454 6659 [office]
| +1 512 870 8453 [direct]
Not sure if this was mentioned, but MongoDB is strongly consistent while
Cassandra is eventually consistent -- at least about a month ago when I
looked at it in more detail, though with vector clocks in 0.7, this may be
less of an issue.
As for "schema-less" and coupling of database/application, e
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Steve Lihn wrote:
> Not sure how to comment on this concept. I guess it infers that the database
> and application are no longer loosely coupled, but now strongly coupled.
> I guess too, that java developers will vote yes, while database architect
> and DBA will vo
Not sure how to comment on this concept. I guess it infers that the database
and application are no longer loosely coupled, but now strongly coupled.
I guess too, that java developers will vote yes, while database architect
and DBA will vote no.
In the "traditional" sense, enterprise data is the s
MongoDB encourages you to define your schema in your application code by
using mapping classes. This logically infers that it makes no sense to
define the schema twice, in the database and in your application code.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Steve Lihn wrote:
> What is changing? A more fle
Mongo has a rich query API and a weak distribution/replication story.
Cassandra has a narrow (read: weak) query API and a strong
distribution/replication story. If you want really shallow learning
curve, easy querying, etc, won't have that much data, and are handy
with the typical master/slave rep
Cassandra has always enforced the tiniest bit of schema. You
basically define how you want your columns and subcolumns to be sorted
within column families. You also name the column families and
keyspaces. That's all though.
The part that is changing is that the keyspaces and column families
wil
What is changing? A more flexible schema or no need to restart (some kind of
hot-reboot)?
Mongo guys claims that Mongo's advantage is a schema-less design. Basically
you can have any data structure you want and you can change them anyway you
want. This is done in the name of "flexibility", but I a
In a perfect world there should be (aiming for) a new major Cassandra release
every 2-3 months.
// Roger Schildmeijer
On 13 maj 2010, at 19.43em, Sandeep Kalidindi wrote:
> Any idea about how far the 0.7 release is ??
>
> Cheers,
> Deepu.
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Vijay wrote:
Any idea about how far the 0.7 release is ??
Cheers,
Deepu.
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Vijay wrote:
> "Cassandra requires the schema to be defined before the database starts,
> MongoDB can have any schema at run-time just like a normal database."
>
> This is changing in 0.7
>
> Regards,
"Cassandra requires the schema to be defined before the database starts,
MongoDB can have any schema at run-time just like a normal database."
This is changing in 0.7
Regards,
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Jonathan Shook wrote:
> You can choose to have keys ordered by using an
> OrderPre
You can choose to have keys ordered by using an
OrderPreservingPartioner with the trade-off that key ranges can get
denser on certain nodes than others.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 PM, philip andrew wrote:
>
> Hi,
> From my understanding, Cassandra entities are indexed on only one key, so
> this
Hi,
>From my understanding, Cassandra entities are indexed on only one key, so
this can be a problem if you are searching for example by two values such as
if you are storing an entity with a x,y then wish to search for entities in
a box ie x>5 and x<10 and y>5 and y<10. MongoDB can do this, Cassa
I tried searching mail-archive, but the search feature is a bit wacky (or
more probably I don't know how to use it).
What are the key differences between Cassandra and Mongodb?
Is there a particular use case where each solution shines?
17 matches
Mail list logo
