Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Cassandra

3.6K
3.5K
+ 1
507
Oracle

2.3K
1.7K
+ 1
113
Add tool

Cassandra vs Oracle: What are the differences?

Introduction

Cassandra and Oracle are both popular database management systems used in various industries. While they have similarities and serve the same purpose, there are key differences between the two. This markdown code aims to provide a concise overview of the main distinctions between Cassandra and Oracle.

  1. Data Model: Cassandra is a NoSQL database that follows a wide-column data model, storing data in a distributed manner across multiple nodes. On the other hand, Oracle is a traditional relational database that adheres to a tabular data model, utilizing tables with rows and columns to store data.

  2. Scalability: Cassandra is designed to scale horizontally, meaning it can handle large amounts of data and traffic by adding more commodity hardware. It offers excellent linear scalability and can distribute data across multiple nodes. In contrast, Oracle primarily scales vertically, relying on increasing the resources of a single server to handle more data and users.

  3. Availability and Fault Tolerance: Cassandra is known for its high availability and fault tolerance. It achieves this through its distributed architecture and replication mechanism, allowing the system to continue functioning even in the face of node failures. Oracle, while offering high availability options, typically relies on backups and standby databases for fault tolerance.

  4. Consistency Model: Cassandra follows the eventual consistency model, which means that updates may not immediately propagate across all nodes but will eventually merge and become consistent. Oracle, being a relational database, generally provides strong consistency, ensuring that transactions are processed in an ordered and consistent manner.

  5. Schema Flexibility: Cassandra is schema-free or schema-less, allowing for flexibility in adding or modifying columns without affecting existing data. This makes it suitable for handling evolving or rapidly changing data requirements. In contrast, Oracle follows a rigid schema approach, where the database structure must be defined and adhered to before inserting data.

  6. Cost: Cassandra is open-source and free to use, making it an attractive option for organizations with limited budgets. Oracle, on the other hand, is a commercial database management system and requires licensing, which can be costly depending on the scale and usage requirements.

In summary, Cassandra and Oracle differ in their data models, scalability approaches, availability mechanisms, consistency models, schema flexibility, and cost. These distinctions make each database management system advantageous in specific use cases and environments.

Advice on Cassandra and Oracle
Umair Iftikhar
Technical Architect at ERP Studio · | 3 upvotes · 442.3K views
Needs advice
on
CassandraCassandraDruidDruid
and
TimescaleDBTimescaleDB

Developing a solution that collects Telemetry Data from different devices, nearly 1000 devices minimum and maximum 12000. Each device is sending 2 packets in 1 second. This is time-series data, and this data definition and different reports are saved on PostgreSQL. Like Building information, maintenance records, etc. I want to know about the best solution. This data is required for Math and ML to run different algorithms. Also, data is raw without definitions and information stored in PostgreSQL. Initially, I went with TimescaleDB due to PostgreSQL support, but to increase in sites, I started facing many issues with timescale DB in terms of flexibility of storing data.

My major requirement is also the replication of the database for reporting and different purposes. You may also suggest other options other than Druid and Cassandra. But an open source solution is appreciated.

See more
Replies (1)
Recommends
on
MongoDBMongoDB

Hi Umair, Did you try MongoDB. We are using MongoDB on a production environment and collecting data from devices like your scenario. We have a MongoDB cluster with three replicas. Data from devices are being written to the master node and real-time dashboard UI is using the secondary nodes for read operations. With this setup write operations are not affected by read operations too.

See more
Vinay Mehta
Needs advice
on
CassandraCassandra
and
ScyllaDBScyllaDB

The problem I have is - we need to process & change(update/insert) 55M Data every 2 min and this updated data to be available for Rest API for Filtering / Selection. Response time for Rest API should be less than 1 sec.

The most important factors for me are processing and storing time of 2 min. There need to be 2 views of Data One is for Selection & 2. Changed data.

See more
Replies (4)
Recommends
on
ScyllaDBScyllaDB

Scylla can handle 1M/s events with a simple data model quite easily. The api to query is CQL, we have REST api but that's for control/monitoring

See more
Alex Peake
Recommends
on
CassandraCassandra

Cassandra is quite capable of the task, in a highly available way, given appropriate scaling of the system. Remember that updates are only inserts, and that efficient retrieval is only by key (which can be a complex key). Talking of keys, make sure that the keys are well distributed.

See more
Recommends
on
ScyllaDBScyllaDB

By 55M do you mean 55 million entity changes per 2 minutes? It is relatively high, means almost 460k per second. If I had to choose between Scylla or Cassandra, I would opt for Scylla as it is promising better performance for simple operations. However, maybe it would be worth to consider yet another alternative technology. Take into consideration required consistency, reliability and high availability and you may realize that there are more suitable once. Rest API should not be the main driver, because you can always develop the API yourself, if not supported by given technology.

See more
Pankaj Soni
Chief Technical Officer at Software Joint · | 2 upvotes · 154.7K views
Recommends
on
CassandraCassandra

i love syclla for pet projects however it's license which is based on server model is an issue. thus i recommend cassandra

See more
Decisions about Cassandra and Oracle
Micha Mailänder
CEO & Co-Founder at Dechea · | 14 upvotes · 81.8K views

Fauna is a serverless database where you store data as JSON. Also, you have build in a HTTP GraphQL interface with a full authentication & authorization layer. That means you can skip your Backend and call it directly from the Frontend. With the power, that you can write data transformation function within Fauna with her own language called FQL, we're getting a blazing fast application.

Also, Fauna takes care about scaling and backups (All data are sharded on three different locations on the globe). That means we can fully focus on writing business logic and don't have to worry anymore about infrastructure.

See more
Daniel Moya
Data Engineer at Dimensigon · | 4 upvotes · 443.8K views

We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL-as-a-Service that the users can deploy in any Cloud without concerns from our website at some standard cost. With Oracle Database, developers would have to worry about what they implement and the related costs of each feature but the licensing model from Tibero is just 1 price and we have all features included, so we don't have to worry and developers using our SQLaaS neither. PostgreSQL would be open source. We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL that you can deploy in any Cloud without concerns. PostgreSQL would be the open source option but we need to offer an SQLaaS with encryption and more enterprise features in the background and best value option we have found, it was Tibero Database for PL/SQL-based applications.

See more

We wanted a JSON datastore that could save the state of our bioinformatics visualizations without destructive normalization. As a leading NoSQL data storage technology, MongoDB has been a perfect fit for our needs. Plus it's open source, and has an enterprise SLA scale-out path, with support of hosted solutions like Atlas. Mongo has been an absolute champ. So much so that SQL and Oracle have begun shipping JSON column types as a new feature for their databases. And when Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) announced support for JSON, we basically had our FHIR datalake technology.

See more

In the field of bioinformatics, we regularly work with hierarchical and unstructured document data. Unstructured text data from PDFs, image data from radiographs, phylogenetic trees and cladograms, network graphs, streaming ECG data... none of it fits into a traditional SQL database particularly well. As such, we prefer to use document oriented databases.

MongoDB is probably the oldest component in our stack besides Javascript, having been in it for over 5 years. At the time, we were looking for a technology that could simply cache our data visualization state (stored in JSON) in a database as-is without any destructive normalization. MongoDB was the perfect tool; and has been exceeding expectations ever since.

Trivia fact: some of the earliest electronic medical records (EMRs) used a document oriented database called MUMPS as early as the 1960s, prior to the invention of SQL. MUMPS is still in use today in systems like Epic and VistA, and stores upwards of 40% of all medical records at hospitals. So, we saw MongoDB as something as a 21st century version of the MUMPS database.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Cassandra
Pros of Oracle
  • 119
    Distributed
  • 98
    High performance
  • 81
    High availability
  • 74
    Easy scalability
  • 53
    Replication
  • 26
    Reliable
  • 26
    Multi datacenter deployments
  • 10
    Schema optional
  • 9
    OLTP
  • 8
    Open source
  • 2
    Workload separation (via MDC)
  • 1
    Fast
  • 44
    Reliable
  • 33
    Enterprise
  • 15
    High Availability
  • 5
    Hard to maintain
  • 5
    Expensive
  • 4
    Maintainable
  • 4
    Hard to use
  • 3
    High complexity

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Cassandra
Cons of Oracle
  • 3
    Reliability of replication
  • 1
    Size
  • 1
    Updates
  • 14
    Expensive

Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

- No public GitHub repository available -

What is Cassandra?

Partitioning means that Cassandra can distribute your data across multiple machines in an application-transparent matter. Cassandra will automatically repartition as machines are added and removed from the cluster. Row store means that like relational databases, Cassandra organizes data by rows and columns. The Cassandra Query Language (CQL) is a close relative of SQL.

What is Oracle?

Oracle Database is an RDBMS. An RDBMS that implements object-oriented features such as user-defined types, inheritance, and polymorphism is called an object-relational database management system (ORDBMS). Oracle Database has extended the relational model to an object-relational model, making it possible to store complex business models in a relational database.

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

What companies use Cassandra?
What companies use Oracle?
See which teams inside your own company are using Cassandra or Oracle.
Sign up for StackShare EnterpriseLearn More

Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

What tools integrate with Cassandra?
What tools integrate with Oracle?

Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

Blog Posts

What are some alternatives to Cassandra and Oracle?
HBase
Apache HBase is an open-source, distributed, versioned, column-oriented store modeled after Google' Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data by Chang et al. Just as Bigtable leverages the distributed data storage provided by the Google File System, HBase provides Bigtable-like capabilities on top of Apache Hadoop.
Google Cloud Bigtable
Google Cloud Bigtable offers you a fast, fully managed, massively scalable NoSQL database service that's ideal for web, mobile, and Internet of Things applications requiring terabytes to petabytes of data. Unlike comparable market offerings, Cloud Bigtable doesn't require you to sacrifice speed, scale, or cost efficiency when your applications grow. Cloud Bigtable has been battle-tested at Google for more than 10 years—it's the database driving major applications such as Google Analytics and Gmail.
Hadoop
The Apache Hadoop software library is a framework that allows for the distributed processing of large data sets across clusters of computers using simple programming models. It is designed to scale up from single servers to thousands of machines, each offering local computation and storage.
Redis
Redis is an open source (BSD licensed), in-memory data structure store, used as a database, cache, and message broker. Redis provides data structures such as strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets with range queries, bitmaps, hyperloglogs, geospatial indexes, and streams.
Couchbase
Developed as an alternative to traditionally inflexible SQL databases, the Couchbase NoSQL database is built on an open source foundation and architected to help developers solve real-world problems and meet high scalability demands.
See all alternatives