We performed a comparison between Cassandra and SingleStore 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."Some of the valued features of this solution are it has good performance and failover."
"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."
"We can add almost one million columns to the solution."
"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 technical evaluation is very good."
"Can achieve continuous data without a single downtime because of node to node ring architecture."
"The most valuable features of Cassandra are the NoSQL database, high performance, and zero-copy streaming."
"I am getting much better performance than relational databases."
"It's a distributed relational database, so it does not have a single server, it has multiple servers. Its architecture itself is fast because it has multiple nodes to distribute the workload and process large amounts of data."
"MemSQL supports the MySQL protocol, and many functions are similar, so the learning curve is very short."
"The ability to store data in memory is a standout feature, enhanced by robust failover mechanisms."
"The product's initial setup phase was pretty straightforward, with no complex processes."
"The paramount advantage is the exceptional speed."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create pipelines, streamline and extract data from the pipelines."
"The product can automatically reinstall and reconfigure in case of a shutdown."
"Interface is not user friendly."
"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."
"The solution is limited to a linear performance."
"The disc space is lacking. You need to free it up as you are working."
"The secondary index in Cassandra was a bit problematic and could be improved."
"Cassandra can improve by adding more built-in tools. For example, if you want to do some maintenance activities in the cluster, we have to depend on third-party tools. Having these tools build-in would be e benefit."
"Doesn't support a solution that can give aggregation."
"Cassandra could be more user-friendly like MongoDB."
"For new customers, it's very tough to start. Their documentation isn't organized, and there's no online training available. SingleStore is working on it, but that's a major drawback."
"Poor key distribution can significantly impact performance, requiring a backward approach in design rather than adding tables incrementally."
"There should be more pipelines available because I think that if MemSQL can connect to other services, that would be great."
"We don't get good discounts in Pakistan."
"Having the ability to migrate servers using a single command would be extremely beneficial."
"It is not the optimal choice for direct data collection through queries, and it's more suited for aggregation tasks."
"The product can be developed further to provide more appropriate output to users as it is one of the areas where there are shortcomings."
Cassandra is ranked 11th in Vector Databases with 19 reviews while SingleStore is ranked 10th in Vector Databases with 7 reviews. Cassandra is rated 8.0, while SingleStore is rated 8.8. 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 SingleStore writes "A reasonably priced product that offers good speed and seamless support". Cassandra is most compared with Couchbase, MongoDB, InfluxDB, ScyllaDB and Oracle NoSQL, whereas SingleStore is most compared with SQL Server, MySQL, Teradata, CockroachDB and Oracle Database. See our Cassandra vs. SingleStore 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.
SQreamDB is a GPU DB. It is not suitable for real-time oltp of course.
Cassandra is best suited for OLTP database use cases, when you need a scalable database (instead of SQL server, Postgres)
SQream is a GPU database suited for OLAP purposes. It's the best suite for a very large data warehouse, very large queries needed mass parallel activity since GPU is great in massive parallel workload.
Also, SQream is quite cheap since we need only one server with a GPU card, the best GPU card the better since we will have more CPU activity. It's only for a very big data warehouse, not for small ones.
Your best DB for 40+ TB is Apache Spark, Drill and the Hadoop stack, in the cloud.
Use the public cloud provider's elastic store (S3, Azure BLOB, google drive) and then stand up Apache Spark on a cluster sized to run your queries within 20 minutes. Based on my experience (Azure BLOB store, Databricks, PySpark) you may need around 500 32GB nodes for reading 40 TB of data.
Costs can be contained by running your own clusters but Databricks manage clusters for you.
I would recommend optimizing your 40TB data store into the Databricks delta format after an initial parse.
Morten, the most popular comparisons of SQream can be found here: www.itcentralstation.com
The top ones include Cassandra, MemSQL, MongoDB, and Vertica.