Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cassandra vs Oracle: What are the differences?
Introduction
Cassandra and Oracle are both popular database management systems used in various industries. While they have similarities and serve the same purpose, there are key differences between the two. This markdown code aims to provide a concise overview of the main distinctions between Cassandra and Oracle.
Data Model: Cassandra is a NoSQL database that follows a wide-column data model, storing data in a distributed manner across multiple nodes. On the other hand, Oracle is a traditional relational database that adheres to a tabular data model, utilizing tables with rows and columns to store data.
Scalability: Cassandra is designed to scale horizontally, meaning it can handle large amounts of data and traffic by adding more commodity hardware. It offers excellent linear scalability and can distribute data across multiple nodes. In contrast, Oracle primarily scales vertically, relying on increasing the resources of a single server to handle more data and users.
Availability and Fault Tolerance: Cassandra is known for its high availability and fault tolerance. It achieves this through its distributed architecture and replication mechanism, allowing the system to continue functioning even in the face of node failures. Oracle, while offering high availability options, typically relies on backups and standby databases for fault tolerance.
Consistency Model: Cassandra follows the eventual consistency model, which means that updates may not immediately propagate across all nodes but will eventually merge and become consistent. Oracle, being a relational database, generally provides strong consistency, ensuring that transactions are processed in an ordered and consistent manner.
Schema Flexibility: Cassandra is schema-free or schema-less, allowing for flexibility in adding or modifying columns without affecting existing data. This makes it suitable for handling evolving or rapidly changing data requirements. In contrast, Oracle follows a rigid schema approach, where the database structure must be defined and adhered to before inserting data.
Cost: Cassandra is open-source and free to use, making it an attractive option for organizations with limited budgets. Oracle, on the other hand, is a commercial database management system and requires licensing, which can be costly depending on the scale and usage requirements.
In summary, Cassandra and Oracle differ in their data models, scalability approaches, availability mechanisms, consistency models, schema flexibility, and cost. These distinctions make each database management system advantageous in specific use cases and environments.
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.
Scylla can handle 1M/s events with a simple data model quite easily. The api to query is CQL, we have REST api but that's for control/monitoring
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.
i love syclla for pet projects however it's license which is based on server model is an issue. thus i recommend cassandra
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.
Fauna is a serverless database where you store data as JSON. Also, you have build in a HTTP GraphQL interface with a full authentication & authorization layer. That means you can skip your Backend and call it directly from the Frontend. With the power, that you can write data transformation function within Fauna with her own language called FQL, we're getting a blazing fast application.
Also, Fauna takes care about scaling and backups (All data are sharded on three different locations on the globe). That means we can fully focus on writing business logic and don't have to worry anymore about infrastructure.
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.
MongoDB is probably the oldest component in our stack besides Javascript, having been in it for over 5 years. At the time, we were looking for a technology that could simply cache our data visualization state (stored in JSON) in a database as-is without any destructive normalization. MongoDB was the perfect tool; and has been exceeding expectations ever since.
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.
Pros of Cassandra
- Distributed119
- High performance98
- High availability81
- Easy scalability74
- Replication53
- Reliable26
- Multi datacenter deployments26
- Schema optional10
- OLTP9
- Open source8
- Workload separation (via MDC)2
- Fast1
Pros of Oracle
- Reliable44
- Enterprise33
- High Availability15
- Hard to maintain5
- Expensive5
- Maintainable4
- Hard to use4
- High complexity3
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Cassandra
- Reliability of replication3
- Size1
- Updates1
Cons of Oracle
- Expensive14
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
What tools integrate with Oracle?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+5
+17
+42
+26