|
|
|
|
|
|
by agacera
2531 days ago
|
|
|
Can you please elaborate a little bit more of how you replaced it by postgres? Because it is strange that a single box of postgres in way less powerful instance type would perform the same as your cassandra cluster.
This kind of seems that the first solution was way over engineered or was built for different requirements. |
|
|
Cassandra session are quite heavy, We have a large farm that spins up, does stuff and closes down. So thats the first problem. (yes we used kafka to pipeline the data in, and that worked well, but...)
It _used_ to be a very heavy write/read ratio. But as time went on, we needed to read more and more thing concurrently.
Because its "distributed" and basically a glorified token ring system, throughput drops dramatically as load increases.
We are not inserting that much data, just lots and lots of records. We then do a geospatial query later on to pull that data back. postGIS is far better at handling this, compared the datastax graph layer + solr(ie, the full datastax "stack" ).
But honestly, we could have coped with that, if the backups worked. That and shipping code with a 4 year old CVE that could have been easily remedied if they'd bothered to do an automated scan.
Every point release would involved 1-5 days of hard work from me. considering the support cost was > my wage, that stung quite a lot.