The only issue I see (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you loose, is that you have single points of failure in the system now i.e. redis etc.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Sandeep Kalidindi at PaGaLGuY.com < sandeep.kalidi...@pagalguy.com> wrote: > @michael - benjamin answered your question. > > Thing is if you use mysql just for indices you are not at all using the > benefits of the whole relational database engine(which is fine) but then are > inheriting all its disadvantages. > > You can use mysql for storing indices and then write your own sharding > layer on top and then make sure network partitions are taken care of and > then.. oh wait you are already starting to create a poor mans cassandra on > top of Mysql. Why not just use cassandra ??? > > One valid argument can be mysql is solid in stability where as cassandra > still yet to prove it is rock solid. But then 0.7 release looks awesome. > There are some really wonderful people developing cassandra and then here to > answer most of your questions and then if you still need there is > Riptano(and jonathan ellis is one hell of a person to discuss your infra > issues). > > Cheers, > Deepu. > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Benjamin Black <b...@b3k.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Michael Dürgner <mich...@duergner.de> >> wrote: >> > The thing about slow on joins is true (we experience that ourselves) but >> still I wonder myself, why you use cassandra for the indices. Can't you just >> store them in MySQL although? >> > >> >> ...and then shard and shard and shard to deal with hundreds of >> millions or billions of rows? That's usually the trade-off. Both can >> be made to work, but neither is free. >> >> >> b >> > >
