It was packaged with the vendor product we bought. Also, it’s good for high performance transactional systems. I'm part of our NoSQL team and Cassandra quickly became a favorite for developers with agile teams.
DynamoDB is good and is also a truly global database as a service on AWS. However, if your organization is not using AWS, then Cassandra will provide a highly scalable and tuneable, consistent database. Cassandra is also fault-tolerant and good for replication across multiple …
Cassandra has its own use case. It performs very well as a data store. Data can be written to it at a high rate. It cannot be compared to traditional RDBMS like Oracle, because they all have their own usage. Even MongoDB, which is somewhat similar, cannot be stacked up against …
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 …
Technology selection should be done based on the need and not based on buzz words in the market (google searching). If your data need flat file approach and more searchable based on index and partition keys, then it's better to go for Cassandra. Cassandra is a better choice …
Cassandra is the only NoSQL database I have extensive experience with. In terms of other open source database solutions, I can say that I like Cassandra as much or equally as traditional Oracle MySql, and a lot more than PostgresSQL. The decision to use Cassandra was driven by …
Against HBASE, writes were faster. Reads not so much. Also ability to store in other formats would be good (such as objects). Compared to aerospike, does not compare. Aerospike blows it out of water.
Cassandra does one thing very well. It's able to collect any type of metrics and analytics and store them at very fast speeds. But when it comes to reading the data, there are minor performance issues. That's when other databases such as couchdb or couchbase come in. They can …
Apache Cassandra has the best of both worlds, it is a Java based NoSQL, linearly scalable, best in class
tunable performance across different workloads, fault tolerant, distributed, masterless, time series database. We have used both Apache HBase and MongoDB for some use cases …
Four years ago, I needed to choose a web-scale database. Having used relational databases for years (PostgreSQL is my favorite), I needed something that could perform well at scale with no downtime. I considered VoltDB for its in-memory speed, but it's limited in scale. I …
We also evaluated mySQL and mongoDB. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses but they are less suited for storing massive amounts of time series data. In addition, they are not elastic by nature and we required a "future-proof" solution as it was difficult to estimate …
You could consider i did use Mysql since i worked with some websites that were using a mysql database. I could not give a side by side comparision since i don't use those like i use the Microsoft SQL , but so far it worked well. I prefer Microsoft SQL due to support and info …
UI of the Microsoft SQL Server makes it easy to use and learn. The better technical support and documentation give it an extra edge over other databases. The Microsoft ecosystem provides additional advantages, as we can seamlessly use other Microsoft products, such as Power …
Microsoft SQL Server is faster and more compatible, but it does cost more, so you're paying for those features. I use the others in many other places where critical transaction processing time and compatibility aren't of great concern.
Microsoft SQL is slower than MySQL and Access but far more feature-rich and reliable. Access is almost obsolete nowadays, so not too many people are considering it, but unless budget or an open-source ethos is a factor, Microsoft SQL is superior in every way. Many commonly used …
Microsoft SQL Server providers a more user friendly experience when it comes to Microsoft SQL Server components management via its unique SQL Server management Studio. It is also a production ready, resilient, highly available and tested database management system (DBMS). The …
The first database application taught when I was in school was Microsoft SQL Server. Microsoft SQL Server was used where I first started, so I had the opportunity to improve myself in MySQL. SQL is also used in my current workplace. It is widely used in very large projects due …
We have a few different DB's in the organization, including: Pervasive, Oracle, Db2, MySQL. Many of them are of limited use for one specific application. These don't really compare to MS SQL server. Oracle is heavy and cumbersome and overkill for smaller apps. Pervasive - …
Microsoft SQL Server is a comprehensive solution as transactional database, data warehouse, analytics, reporting, and ETL. It also integrates with the cloud well (Azure). The ease of use and setup makes this better than Oracle Database because the query syntax is also different …
I think both tools are really powerful and close to each other but since I moved to Europe I realized that most of the companies have been using SQL Server which in my opinion means something. The support from Microsoft I also consider a bit better and you can also find more …
Microsoft was the original creator of the SQL database, and thus, they still rule the market and drive innovation when it comes to data warehousing systems. It's comparable in price and allows you to retain the structured datasets that you lose when you change to a NoSQL …
[Microsoft] SQL Server has a much better community and professional support and is overall just a more reliable system with Microsoft behind it. I've used MySQL in the past and SQL Server has just become more comfortable for me and is my go to RDBMS.
Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle are both extremely powerful and scalable enterprise relational database platforms. Microsoft SQL sets itself apart with its ease of use and licensing and support model. Microsoft is good company to work with and they provide clear and …
It just boils down to why learn anther product when you are going to run across it so seldom. Developers determine what database engine I am going to need so I just tend to pick products for implementation that use a well know product that has lots of support resources …
The most known and widely used competitor of Microsoft SQL is most probably the open-source MySQL. If given the choice I would personally choose MySQL over Microsoft's SQL Server, mainly because it is totally free and open source, but also because it integrates better with …
[Microsoft SQL Server] offers a full solution, Inhouse Applications and hosted application continue to use SQL as backend database. Allows easy creation of development environments and continuous feature release.
All of the platforms have their own benefit. I was not the decision maker in selecting Microsoft SQL Server, as it was already being utilized when I joined the company, 7 years ago. I can say that I feel more comfortable with utilizing this platform as opposed to the other ones.
The free version is very powerfull and easy to install and use for small companies. Going to Professional and Standard, gives you all the support and the flexibility needed. It is known within the Database Administrator crew, and you can get support very easily over the …
Native to Windows and being required for other MS apps puts it above others in terms of usage. If we were not heavily dependent on Microsoft applications or OS, we might have considered other database solutions. It's an expensive solutions but it is a solid reliable solution. …
I was not too impressed with Oracle. Following the manual prohibited installation. They did provide a phone number and explained the manual was wrong and provided me with the correct information with which I was able to install the product. This was awhile back and I do not …
Microsoft SQL Server is one of the fastest RDBMS systems available in the market. Pricing is a bit on the higher side but all the features it provides pretty much justifies it. It can be integrated with a large number of frameworks thus enabling to work on multiple frameworks …
Microsoft SQL Server is still the industry standard for the type of development we do, and the types of applications that we use. Almost every developer or analyst we hire has at least a reasonable grounding in the use of SQL servers, and it is almost universally compatible …
Cassandra excels in a broad range of applications -- especially if you understand its data model and write your applications accordingly. It's an excellent choice for time-series data, and a poor choice for application queues. It performs the best if you can simply record history and compute from it, rather than going back and editing or deleting things a lot.
Microsoft SQL Server is ideal for highly available SQL workloads by using SQL Server Always On availability groups. Microsoft SQL Server might not be appropriate for solutions which require a very low resource footprint, since it requires significant CPU cores and RAM memory as well as high IOPS, always depending on the usage scenario.
High Availability - we utilize the data replication features of Cassandra. This enables us to access our data even when several nodes have gone down
Data Locality - our architecture combines Cassandra storage nodes and computation nodes in the same machine. This enables us to utilize data locality and limit expensive network IO to read data.
Elasticity - Cassandra is a shared nothing architecture. Nodes can be added very easily and they discover the network topology. As soon as a node has joined the Cassandra ring, the data is redistributed among the existing nodes and streamed to it automatically.
No Ad-Hoc Queries: Cassandra data storage layer is basically a key-value storage system. This means that you must "model" your data around the queries you want to surface, rather than around the structure of the data itself.
There are no aggregations queries available in Cassandra.
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.
I think it is unlikely that sql server has disappointed someone, it is likely that someone will come initially discouraged if the needs and problems that occur are very challenging, but definitely have a SQL oriented system means having a solid base to work and on which maintain the their data securely
SQL Server mostly 'just works' or generates error messages to help you sort out the trouble. You can usually count on the product to get the job done and keep an eye on your potential mistakes. Interaction with other Microsoft products makes operating as a Windows user pretty straight forward. Digging through the multitude of dialogs and wizards can be a pain, but the answer is usually there somewhere.
We managed to handle most of our problems by looking into Microsoft's official documentation that has everything explained and almost every function has an example that illustrates in detail how a particular functionality works. Just like PowerShell has the ability to show you an example of how some cmdlet works, that is the case also here, and in my opinion, it is a very good practice and I like it.
Other than SQL taking quite a bit of time to actually install there are no problems with installation. Even on hardware that has good performance SQL can still take close to an hour to install a typical server with management and reporting services.
Apache Cassandra has the best of both worlds, it is a Java based NoSQL, linearly scalable, best in class tunable performance across different workloads, fault tolerant, distributed, masterless, time series database. We have used both Apache HBase and MongoDB for some use cases which were within hadoop setup and JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) document store respectively, but given the overall factors favoring Apache Cassandra, it is a technology choice for multiple platforms!
Microsoft SQL is slower than MySQL and Access but far more feature-rich and reliable. Access is almost obsolete nowadays, so not too many people are considering it, but unless budget or an open-source ethos is a factor, Microsoft SQL is superior in every way. Many commonly used tools, like Crystal Reports, support it.
The open source version of Cassandra is only suggested for learning the basic concepts and play with its core features. Unless you really want to invest a lot in your developers and architects knowing every detail of Cassandra, I prefer the DataStax enterprise version. Although the license cost is relatively high, I think they it is worth it. I'm thinking about the support, the monitoring tool OpsCenter, and the integration of Solr and Spark (for data analysis).
Cassandra didn't fully replace our old and traditional relation database Oracle. In addition, it opens another door for us to deal with some special business use cases that NoSQL database can do better in a more feasible and efficient way.
Increased accuracy - We went from multiple users having different versions of an Excel spreadsheet to a single source of truth for our reporting.
Increased Efficiency - We can now generate reports at any time from a single source rather than multiple users spending their time collating data and generating reports.
Improved Security - Enterprise level security on a dedicated server rather than financial files on multiple laptop hard drives.