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."

No Winner

[WrongSizeGlass]

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.

Re:No Winner

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't pure shit that. 1.5 seconds for a query that should be 3-4 disk blocks at max?

• digg's blog with their schema [digg.com]
• criticism [blogspot.com]
• more criticism [yafla.com]
• and some more criticism [yafla.com]

Re:No Winner

[Hognoxious]

Production code works ... until it doesn't.

I've seen a situation where half of the bugs reports in our system were down to one badly conceived and shittily implemented module. But when I suggested binning it and doing it again properly, the answer was "but it works!".

Re:No Winner

[inKubus]

And what about memcached [memcached.org]? It's a simple key/value object database. What about an "associative array", isn't that basically a key/value database? I don't see what the hype is about.