Apache Cassandra vs. FirebirdSQL

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cassandra
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
Cassandra is a no-SQL database from Apache.N/A
Firebird
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
FirebirdSQL is an open-source database which can be embedded.N/A
Pricing
Apache CassandraFirebirdSQL
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CassandraFirebird
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache CassandraFirebirdSQL
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
Apache CassandraFirebirdSQL
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Apache Cassandra
8.0
5 Ratings
9% below category average
FirebirdSQL
-
Ratings
Performance8.55 Ratings00 Ratings
Availability8.85 Ratings00 Ratings
Concurrency7.65 Ratings00 Ratings
Security8.05 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability9.55 Ratings00 Ratings
Data model flexibility6.75 Ratings00 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility7.05 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Apache CassandraFirebirdSQL
Small Businesses
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 8.1 out of 10
InfluxDB
InfluxDB
Score 8.5 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 8.1 out of 10
SQLite
SQLite
Score 9.1 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 8.1 out of 10
SQLite
SQLite
Score 9.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache CassandraFirebirdSQL
Likelihood to Recommend
6.0
(16 ratings)
8.2
(5 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.6
(16 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(1 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
7.0
(1 ratings)
5.0
(1 ratings)
Implementation Rating
7.0
(1 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache CassandraFirebirdSQL
Likelihood to Recommend
Apache
Apache Cassandra is a NoSQL database and well suited where you need highly available, linearly scalable, tunable consistency and high performance across varying workloads. It has worked well for our use cases, and I shared my experiences to use it effectively at the last Cassandra summit! http://bit.ly/1Ok56TK It is a NoSQL database, finally you can tune it to be strongly consistent and successfully use it as such. However those are not usual patterns, as you negotiate on latency. It works well if you require that. If your use case needs strongly consistent environments with semantics of a relational database or if the use case needs a data warehouse, or if you need NoSQL with ACID transactions, Apache Cassandra may not be the optimum choice.
Read full review
Open Source
It is able to handle simultaneous connections when using the embedded software version. It is well suited for organizations looking for standalone servers that can handle high data volumes and still perform well and which is also cost-effective database management system especially when they are working on a low budget.
Read full review
Pros
Apache
  • Continuous availability: as a fully distributed database (no master nodes), we can update nodes with rolling restarts and accommodate minor outages without impacting our customer services.
  • Linear scalability: for every unit of compute that you add, you get an equivalent unit of capacity. The same application can scale from a single developer's laptop to a web-scale service with billions of rows in a table.
  • Amazing performance: if you design your data model correctly, bearing in mind the queries you need to answer, you can get answers in milliseconds.
  • Time-series data: Cassandra excels at recording, processing, and retrieving time-series data. It's a simple matter to version everything and simply record what happens, rather than going back and editing things. Then, you can compute things from the recorded history.
Read full review
Open Source
  • Performance is really fast.
  • It is portable and easy to take back ups.
  • Its open n source and free.
Read full review
Cons
Apache
  • Cassandra runs on the JVM and therefor may require a lot of GC tuning for read/write intensive applications.
  • Requires manual periodic maintenance - for example it is recommended to run a cleanup on a regular basis.
  • There are a lot of knobs and buttons to configure the system. For many cases the default configuration will be sufficient, but if its not - you will need significant ramp up on the inner workings of Cassandra in order to effectively tune it.
Read full review
Open Source
  • Documentation.
  • No GUI tool to view data.
  • Slow via remote access.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Apache
I would recommend Cassandra DB to those who know their use case very well, as well as know how they are going to store and retrieve data. If you need a guarantee in data storage and retrieval, and a DB that can be linearly grown by adding nodes across availability zones and regions, then this is the database you should choose.
Read full review
Open Source
Because it is free and usually zero maintenance. Just the issue of more difficult format updates in the future lower the rating a bit.
Read full review
Usability
Apache
It’s great tool but it can be complicated when it comes administration and maintenance.
Read full review
Open Source
Usability has improved by unifying the architecture. The only thing's missing out of the box is a simple GUI DB tool for viewing DB contents and maybe running some SQL queries.
Read full review
Support Rating
Apache
Sometimes instead giving straight answer, we ‘re getting transfered to talk professional service.
Read full review
Open Source
This is an open source project. It provides a fair amount of free documentation and I think forums somewhere...
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Apache
No answers on this topic
Open Source
Even somebody just starting to use RDBMS himself should get it working quickly, at least if he's got a GUI tool and some SQL knowledge.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Apache
We evaluated MongoDB also, but don't like the single point failure possibility. The HBase coupled us too tightly to the Hadoop world while we prefer more technical flexibility. Also HBase is designed for "cold"/old historical data lake use cases and is not typically used for web and mobile applications due to its performance concern. Cassandra, by contrast, offers the availability and performance necessary for developing highly available applications. Furthermore, the Hadoop technology stack is typically deployed in a single location, while in the big international enterprise context, we demand the feasibility for deployment across countries and continents, hence finally we are favor of Cassandra
Read full review
Open Source
Because it is having Open Source License and easy to deploy on windows and linux environment
Read full review
Return on Investment
Apache
  • I have no experience with this but from the blogs and news what I believe is that in businesses where there is high demand for scalability, Cassandra is a good choice to go for.
  • Since it works on CQL, it is quite familiar with SQL in understanding therefore it does not prevent a new employee to start in learning and having the Cassandra experience at an industrial level.
Read full review
Open Source
  • Cost effective saving us from paid relational database.
  • Community support.
  • Efficiency in handling simultaneous connections.
Read full review
ScreenShots