[paulasmuth]

> The point of the comparison is that InfluxDB gives you a ton of functionality out of the box and has great performance. [...] if you want to do time series on Cassandra, you're going to write a bunch of the code yourself.

Fair enough. I'm sure InfluxDB is very good/fast at timeseries data (allthough I have to admit to not actually having tried it out so far). Still, if that was your point, consider removing these statements from the blog.

> InfluxDB outperformed Cassandra by 4.5x when it came to data ingestion.

> InfluxDB outperformed Cassandra by delivering 10.8x better compression.

> InfluxDB outperformed Cassandra by delivering up to 168x better query performance.

I think it would help make the point and not put the reader in a defensive position (when the statements are clearly not based on a fair comparison of the two products and will not hold under most conditions). Just my two cents.

[pauldix]

Maybe, but we get asked all the time about Cassandra vs. us. Both in terms of feature set and performance. And performance only makes sense for our potential users if we're trying to replicate the features on Cassandra.