We performed a comparison between Cassandra and InfluxDB based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NoSQL Databases solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"Can achieve continuous data without a single downtime because of node to node ring architecture."
"The solution's database capabilities are very good."
"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."
"We can add almost one million columns to the solution."
"A consistent solution."
"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."
"The solution is very powerful."
"The user interface is well-designed and easy to use. It provides a clear overview of the data, making it simple to understand the information at hand."
"The most valuable features are aggregating the data and integration with Graphana for monitoring."
"InfluxDB's best feature is that it's a cloud offering. Other good features include its time-series DB, fast time-bulk queries, and window operations."
"The most valuable features of InfluxDB are the documentation and performance, and the good plugins metrics in the ecosystem."
"InfluxDB is a database where you can insert data. However, it would be best if you had different components for alerting, data sending, and visualization. You need to install tools to collect data from servers. It must be installed on Windows or Linux servers. During installation, ensure that the configuration file is correct to prevent issues. Once data is collected, it can be sent to InfluxDB. For visualization, you can use open-source tools like Grafana."
"In our case, it started with a necessity to fill the gap that we had in monitoring. We had very reactive monitoring without trend analysis and without some advanced features. We were able to implement them by using a time series database. We are able to have all the data from applications, logs, and systems, and we can use a simple query language to correlate all the data and make things happen, especially with monitoring. We could more proactively monitor our systems and our players' trends."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is we can use InfluxDB to integrate with and plug into any other tools."
"The secondary index in Cassandra was a bit problematic and could be improved."
"The solution is limited to a linear performance."
"The disc space is lacking. You need to free it up as you are working."
"Cassandra could be more user-friendly like MongoDB."
"It can be difficult to analyze what's going on inside of the database relative to other databases. It can also be difficult to troubleshoot sometimes."
"Doesn't support a solution that can give aggregation."
"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."
"Maybe they can improve their performance in data fetching from a high volume of data sets."
"The solution's UI can be more user-friendly."
"The error logging capability can be improved because the logs are not very informative."
"InfluxDB can improve by including new metrics on other technologies. They had some changes recently to pool data from endpoints but the functionality is not good enough in the industry."
"InfluxDB cannot be used for high-cardinality data. It's also difficult and time-consuming to write queries, and there are some issues with bulk API."
"The solution doesn't have much of a user interface."
"In terms of features that I would like to see or have, in the community version, some features are not available. I would like to have clustering and authentication in the community version."
"I've tried both on-premises and cloud-based deployments, and each has its limitations."
"InfluxDB is generally stable, but we've encountered issues with the configuration file in our ticket stack. For instance, a mistake in one of the metrics out of a hundred KPIs can disrupt data collection for all KPIs. This happens because the agent stops working if there's an issue with any configuration part. To address this, it is essential to ensure that all configurations are part of the agent's EXE file when provided. This makes it easier to package the agent for server installation and ensures all KPIs are available from the server. Additionally, the agent cannot encrypt and decrypt passwords for authentication, which can be problematic when monitoring URLs or requiring authentication tokens. This requires additional scripting and can prolong service restart times."
Cassandra is ranked 4th in NoSQL Databases with 19 reviews while InfluxDB is ranked 3rd in NoSQL Databases with 8 reviews. Cassandra is rated 8.0, while InfluxDB is rated 7.6. 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 InfluxDB writes "A powerful, lightweight time series database with a simple query language and easy setup". Cassandra is most compared with Couchbase, MongoDB, ScyllaDB, Oracle NoSQL and Neo4j Graph Database, whereas InfluxDB is most compared with MongoDB, Netdata, ScyllaDB, Cloudera Distribution for Hadoop and Couchbase. See our Cassandra vs. InfluxDB report.
See our list of best NoSQL Databases vendors.
We monitor all NoSQL 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.
