|
|
|
|
|
|
by kostja
2008 days ago
|
|
|
We at Scylla are perhaps better than anyone else aware of the Cassandra legacy we inherited. However, this is not what this analysis demonstrates. It shows we're working on making the great ideas of Cassandra work well, and bad ideas become irrelevant. Should anyone make the judgement about Scylla based on their prior negative experience with Cassandra? I think no. |
|
|
I agree that scylla shows a lot more promise than C, but we hit (different) instabilities and gotchas on both
All has its place. I am not saying C or scylla should not be used. I was just pointing out that the basic ideas and the CQL language itself is designed to trick you in in doing a lot of things that turn out to be really wrong on the data model used by these software.
It's not an implementation thing. Should I consider only that, scylla'd be really good (provided you have the correct hardware) and much better than C*. Still, the issue (IMHO) is with the theory and the fact that the actual correct applications are much, much narrower than the initial impact lets you believe (especially due to CQL)
--edit: Kudos on scylla btw, but basically I am doubtful how much it's possible to overcome that legacy without going really incompatible even on the API