Cassandra vs Oracle: What are the differences?
Developers describe Cassandra as "A partitioned row store. Rows are organized into tables with a required primary key". Partitioning means that Cassandra can distribute your data across multiple machines in an application-transparent matter. Cassandra will automatically repartition as machines are added and removed from the cluster. Row store means that like relational databases, Cassandra organizes data by rows and columns. The Cassandra Query Language (CQL) is a close relative of SQL. On the other hand, Oracle is detailed as "An RDBMS that implements object-oriented features such as user-defined types, inheritance, and polymorphism". Oracle Database is an RDBMS. An RDBMS that implements object-oriented features such as user-defined types, inheritance, and polymorphism is called an object-relational database management system (ORDBMS). Oracle Database has extended the relational model to an object-relational model, making it possible to store complex business models in a relational database.
Cassandra and Oracle belong to "Databases" category of the tech stack.
"Distributed" is the primary reason why developers consider Cassandra over the competitors, whereas "Reliable" was stated as the key factor in picking Oracle.
Cassandra is an open source tool with 5.27K GitHub stars and 2.35K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Cassandra's open source repository on GitHub.
According to the StackShare community, Cassandra has a broader approval, being mentioned in 342 company stacks & 239 developers stacks; compared to Oracle, which is listed in 106 company stacks and 92 developer stacks.
Developing a solution that collects Telemetry Data from different devices, nearly 1000 devices minimum and maximum 12000. Each device is sending 2 packets in 1 second. This is time-series data, and this data definition and different reports are saved on PostgreSQL. Like Building information, maintenance records, etc. I want to know about the best solution. This data is required for Math and ML to run different algorithms. Also, data is raw without definitions and information stored in PostgreSQL. Initially, I went with TimescaleDB due to PostgreSQL support, but to increase in sites, I started facing many issues with timescale DB in terms of flexibility of storing data.
My major requirement is also the replication of the database for reporting and different purposes. You may also suggest other options other than Druid and Cassandra. But an open source solution is appreciated.
Hi Umair, Did you try MongoDB. We are using MongoDB on a production environment and collecting data from devices like your scenario. We have a MongoDB cluster with three replicas. Data from devices are being written to the master node and real-time dashboard UI is using the secondary nodes for read operations. With this setup write operations are not affected by read operations too.
The problem I have is - we need to process & change(update/insert) 55M Data every 2 min and this updated data to be available for Rest API for Filtering / Selection. Response time for Rest API should be less than 1 sec.
The most important factors for me are processing and storing time of 2 min. There need to be 2 views of Data One is for Selection & 2. Changed data.
Cassandra is quite capable of the task, in a highly available way, given appropriate scaling of the system. Remember that updates are only inserts, and that efficient retrieval is only by key (which can be a complex key). Talking of keys, make sure that the keys are well distributed.
By 55M do you mean 55 million entity changes per 2 minutes? It is relatively high, means almost 460k per second. If I had to choose between Scylla or Cassandra, I would opt for Scylla as it is promising better performance for simple operations. However, maybe it would be worth to consider yet another alternative technology. Take into consideration required consistency, reliability and high availability and you may realize that there are more suitable once. Rest API should not be the main driver, because you can always develop the API yourself, if not supported by given technology.
We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL-as-a-Service that the users can deploy in any Cloud without concerns from our website at some standard cost. With Oracle Database, developers would have to worry about what they implement and the related costs of each feature but the licensing model from Tibero is just 1 price and we have all features included, so we don't have to worry and developers using our SQLaaS neither. PostgreSQL would be open source. We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL that you can deploy in any Cloud without concerns. PostgreSQL would be the open source option but we need to offer an SQLaaS with encryption and more enterprise features in the background and best value option we have found, it was Tibero Database for PL/SQL-based applications.
We wanted a JSON datastore that could save the state of our bioinformatics visualizations without destructive normalization. As a leading NoSQL data storage technology, MongoDB has been a perfect fit for our needs. Plus it's open source, and has an enterprise SLA scale-out path, with support of hosted solutions like Atlas. Mongo has been an absolute champ. So much so that SQL and Oracle have begun shipping JSON column types as a new feature for their databases. And when Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) announced support for JSON, we basically had our FHIR datalake technology.
In the field of bioinformatics, we regularly work with hierarchical and unstructured document data. Unstructured text data from PDFs, image data from radiographs, phylogenetic trees and cladograms, network graphs, streaming ECG data... none of it fits into a traditional SQL database particularly well. As such, we prefer to use document oriented databases.
Trivia fact: some of the earliest electronic medical records (EMRs) used a document oriented database called MUMPS as early as the 1960s, prior to the invention of SQL. MUMPS is still in use today in systems like Epic and VistA, and stores upwards of 40% of all medical records at hospitals. So, we saw MongoDB as something as a 21st century version of the MUMPS database.
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Cassandra?
What is Oracle?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Stitch is a wrapper around a Cassandra database. It has a web application that provides read-access to the counts through an HTTP API. The counts are written to Cassandra in two distinct ways, and it's possible to use either or both of them:
Real-time: For real-time updates, Stitch has a processor application that handles a stream of events coming from a broker and increments the appropriate counts in Cassandra.
Batch: The batch part is a MapReduce job running on Hadoop that reads event logs, calculates the overall totals, and bulk loads this into Cassandra.
Cassandra is our data management workhorse. It handles all our key-value services, supports time-series data storage and retrieval, securely stores all our audit trails, and backs our Datomic database.
While we experimented with Cassandra in the past, we are no longer using it. It is, however, open for consideration in future projects.
We are using Cassandra in a few of our apps. One of them is as a count service application to track the number of shares, clicks.. etc
Gerenciamento de banco de dados utilizados por odos os serviços/aplicações criados
recommended solution at school, also used to try out alternatives to MySQL