Cassandra and Voldemort Benchmarked
kreide33 writes "Key/Value storage systems are gaining in popularity, much because of features such as easy scalability and automatic replication. However, there are several to choose from and performance is an important deciding factor. This article compares the performance of two of the most well-known projects, Cassandra and Voldemort, using several different mixes of access types, and compares both throughput and latency."
Their conclusion was that there was "no clear winner". Not surprising. Both of these products are in their early stages of development (Voldemort v0.80.1, Cassandra 0.6.0-beta3) and will certainly work on optimization and performance issues after the product is stable.
I'd like to have seen them run MySQL, PostgreSQL or SQLite through the same tests so we could see how these NoSQL solutions compared.
Did anyone else read this as comparing Cassandra from King's Quest and Voldemort from Harry Potter?
I was expecting something about Cassandra producing a bunch of warnings in log files that no one ever bothers to read, and Voldemort having various problems managing the child processes in the cluster (mostly being unable to kill or reap them).
Is a key/value system a database with just one table that has one key field and one non-key field?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Until Voldy pulls that whole Avada Kedavra thing...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I hear Voldemort has a really good replication strategy.