[threeseed]

> Cassandra is one of the better ones out there

I take it you haven't actually used Cassandra much in the last few years. It's data model is almost identical to a typical relational one and it's consistency promises are quite clear:

http://www.datastax.com/documentation/cql/3.0/cql/aboutCQL.h...

And I've scaled Cassandra clusters from 1 to 100 nodes in hours with no issues. It really is quite simple. Likewise have had no issues with MongoDB replica sets. It is definitely not "really, really hard".

> postgres is to do it right, or not do it

What a pathetic cop out. PostgreSQL has been around for decades they've had plenty of time to have a proven, stable solution implemented.

[norkakn]

Cassandra avoids some of the really visible issues by being AP instead of CP. Hbase hits them, but dodges a bit by only having row level consistency. They are solving very different problems.

The lack of vector clocks in Cassandra can lead to some very non-intuitive (possible wrong) behavior - check out their counter implementation for some rage on that. It's pretty well made though, and I think C*, Hbase and Postgres all have great uses (along with Redis, and a lot of others)

Mongo tends to get things subtly wrong in ways that corrupt data, or that don't scale, and it gives up both A and C.

[dmpk2k]

It's quite simple until you write code that has to deal with AP (as in CAP), and the limitations that come with it. I have, and what a pain that was.