Would you care to elaborate? Seriously, do you have any pointers or benchmarks for a Mongo vs Cassandra vs X comparison that isn't purely anecdotal, and which takes the relative strengths of each into account in a robust way? A lot of blog posts with performance numbers seem anecdotal or loaded towards one option over the other.
I'm excited by some of the underlying technology in Mongo and its ilk (gossiping protocols, etc.), but there's no doubt that they require different programming techniques than traditional RDBMS. Bit like apples and oranges, isn't it?
EDIT: I noticed you changed RDBMS to "big data". I'm still curious if you have any pointers to fair benchmarks though.
Well, don't trust a benchmark that you haven't faked yourself they say.
I was just trying to point out that MongoDB is too easy a target here. The problems it has under high load are fairly well-known, at least to anyone who tried to benchmark it outside of their MacBooks. Just bulk-load a couple million records and watch it tip over if you don't believe me - I'm not making it up and neither is Sergei.
However if Clustrix wants to impress with benchmarks then they should pick an equal opponent. MongoDB is not exactly relevant for companies that consider the calibre (and cost!) of Clustrix.
I am a Mongo fan in some respects, but I agree that every benchmarking I do with any significant data involves the painfully slow bulk writes to get it started -- not a good first impression. Can some Mongo people help explain this?
Comments
Would you care to elaborate? Seriously, do you have any pointers or benchmarks for a Mongo vs Cassandra vs X comparison that isn't purely anecdotal, and which takes the relative strengths of each into account in a robust way? A lot of blog posts with performance numbers seem anecdotal or loaded towards one option over the other.
I'm excited by some of the underlying technology in Mongo and its ilk (gossiping protocols, etc.), but there's no doubt that they require different programming techniques than traditional RDBMS. Bit like apples and oranges, isn't it?
EDIT: I noticed you changed RDBMS to "big data". I'm still curious if you have any pointers to fair benchmarks though.
Well, don't trust a benchmark that you haven't faked yourself they say.
I was just trying to point out that MongoDB is too easy a target here. The problems it has under high load are fairly well-known, at least to anyone who tried to benchmark it outside of their MacBooks. Just bulk-load a couple million records and watch it tip over if you don't believe me - I'm not making it up and neither is Sergei.
However if Clustrix wants to impress with benchmarks then they should pick an equal opponent. MongoDB is not exactly relevant for companies that consider the calibre (and cost!) of Clustrix.
I am a Mongo fan in some respects, but I agree that every benchmarking I do with any significant data involves the painfully slow bulk writes to get it started -- not a good first impression. Can some Mongo people help explain this?