We performed a comparison between Cassandra and Pinecone based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Vector Databases solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cassandra is good. It's better than CouchDB, and we are using it in parallel with CouchDB. Cassandra looks better and is more user-friendly."
"The use of Cassandra in real-time data analytics has been pivotal for our e-commerce platform. As our platform operates 24/7, providing services to sellers and customers alike, the need for real-time updates is paramount."
"The most valuable feature of Cassandra is its fast retrieval. Additionally, the solution can handle large amounts of data. It is the quickest application we use."
"The most valuable features are the counter features and the NoSQL schema. It also has good scalability. You can scale Cassandra to any finite level."
"Our primary use case for the solution is testing."
"Can achieve continuous data without a single downtime because of node to node ring architecture."
"Cassandra has some features that are more useful for specific use cases where you have time series where you have huge amounts of writes. That should be quick, but not specifically the reads. We needed to have quicker reads and writes and this is why we are using Cassandra right now."
"The time series data was one of the best features along with auto publishing."
"We chose Pinecone because it covers most of the use cases."
"The product's setup phase was easy."
"The semantic search capability is very good."
"The most valuable features of the solution are similarity search and maximal marginal relevance search for retrieval purposes."
"Doesn't support a solution that can give aggregation."
"There could be more integration, and it could be more user-friendly."
"The solution doesn't have joins between tables so you need other tools for that."
"The secondary index in Cassandra was a bit problematic and could be improved."
"The solution is not easy to use because it is a big database and you have to learn the interface. This is the case though in most of these solutions."
"Fine-tuning was a bit of a challenge."
"Depending upon our schema, we can't make ORDER BY or GROUP BY clauses in the product."
"The solution is limited to a linear performance."
"The tool does not confirm whether a file is deleted or not."
"For testing purposes, the product should offer support locally as it is one area where the tool has shortcomings."
"Onboarding could be better and smoother."
"The product fails to offer a serverless type of storage capacity."
Cassandra is ranked 12th in Vector Databases with 19 reviews while Pinecone is ranked 6th in Vector Databases with 4 reviews. Cassandra is rated 8.0, while Pinecone is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cassandra writes "Well-equipped to handle a massive influx of data and billions of requests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pinecone writes "Helps retrieve data, relatively cheaper, and provides useful documentation". Cassandra is most compared with Couchbase, MongoDB, ScyllaDB, InfluxDB and Oracle NoSQL, whereas Pinecone is most compared with OpenSearch, Faiss, Elastic Search, Qdrant and SingleStore. See our Cassandra vs. Pinecone report.
See our list of best Vector Databases vendors.
We monitor all Vector Databases reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.