NoSQL Benchmarks NoSQL use cases NoSQL Videos NoSQL Hybrid Solutions NoSQL Presentations Big Data Hadoop MapReduce Pig Hive Flume Oozie Sqoop HDFS ZooKeeper Cascading Cascalog BigTable Cassandra HBase Hypertable Couchbase CouchDB MongoDB OrientDB RavenDB Jackrabbit Terrastore Amazon DynamoDB Redis Riak Project Voldemort Tokyo Cabinet Kyoto Cabinet memcached Amazon SimpleDB Datomic MemcacheDB M/DB GT.M Amazon Dynamo Dynomite Mnesia Yahoo! PNUTS/Sherpa Neo4j InfoGrid Sones GraphDB InfiniteGraph AllegroGraph MarkLogic Clustrix CouchDB Case Studies MongoDB Case Studies NoSQL at Adobe NoSQL at Facebook NoSQL at Twitter



MySQL Sharding vs MySQL Cluster

StackExchange Q&A:

Q: Considering performance only, can a MySQL Cluster beat a custom data sharding MySQL solution?

A: I would say that MySQL Cluster could achieve higher throughput/host than sharded MySQL+InnoDB provided that :

  • Queries are simple
  • All data fits in-memory

In terms of latency, MySQL Cluster should have more stable latency than sharded MySQL. Actual latencies for purely in-memory data could be similar. As queries become more complex, and data is stored on disk, the performance comparison becomes more confusing.

Make sure you read the complete answer as it covers some more MySQL Sharding vs MySQL Cluster pros and cons.

Mat Keep

Original title and link: MySQL Sharding vs MySQL Cluster (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)