write down the case study on cassandra and mongodb

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

Cassandra vs MongoDB: Detailed Comparison

Delve into the showdown of Cassandra vs MongoDB and discover the key differences between these popular NoSQL databases. Explore an overview of Cassandra and MongoDB and compare their data models, data structures, and query languages. Assess their scalability, performance, consistency, and availability. Read more to learn!

Exclusive 40% OFF

Training Outcomes Within Your Budget!

We ensure quality, budget-alignment, and timely delivery by our expert instructors.

Share this Resource

• Introduction to HTML
• Big Data and Hadoop Solutions Architect
• Hadoop Administration Training
• Hadoop Big Data Certification
• Hadoop Training Course with Impala

According to a study by Deloitte , a 0.1-second improvement in load times improved user engagement by almost 5.2 per cent. This illustrates the value of having strong backend databases capable of constant improvement and adaptability. In this blog, we will explore Cassandra vs MongoDB, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses and guiding you in making an informed choice between the two. 

Table of Contents  

1) Overview of Cassandra and MongoDB 

2) Data Structure and Query Language 

3) Scalability and Performance 

4) Consistency and Availability 

5) Data Integrity and Security 

6) Community and Ecosystem 

7) Performance Comparison 

8) Use Case Scenarios 

9) Conclusion 

Overview of Cassandra and MongoDB  

In today's data-driven world, the demand for scalable and flexible databases has led to the rise of NoSQL solutions. Among them, Cassandra and MongoDB have gained popularity due to their data handling capabilities and ability to provide horizontal scalability. While both databases belong to the NoSQL family, they have distinct architectures and features that suit different use cases. Let's delve into a detailed comparison of Cassandra and MongoDB to understand their strengths and weaknesses. 

Cassandra  

Cassandra, originally developed by Facebook and later open-sourced by Apache, is a distributed, wide-column store NoSQL database. It is designed to provide high availability and fault tolerance while supporting large-scale data storage and retrieval. 

Key Features of Cassandra  

1) Distributed Architecture: Cassandra uses a peer-to-peer distributed model, allowing horizontal scalability across multiple nodes and data centres seamlessly. 

2) High Availability: The decentralised architecture ensures that data remains available even if some nodes fail, making it suitable for mission-critical applications. 

3) Scalability: Cassandra's linear scalability allows it to handle massive amounts of data without compromising performance. 

4) Data Replication: It supports data replication across nodes, providing fault tolerance and data redundancy. 

Tuneable Consistency: Cassandra allows developers to tune the level of consistency based on their specific requirements, offering flexibility in data consistency models. 

Apache Cassandra excels in scenarios where high availability, fault tolerance, and scalability are critical. It is well-suited for applications dealing with time-series data, real-time analytics, and large-scale data storage, such as in IoT devices, financial services, and social media platforms. 

MongoDB  

MongoDB, developed by MongoDB Inc., is a document-oriented NoSQL database with the capability of storing data in BSON (Binary JSON) format. It is designed to provide flexibility and ease of use in managing semi-structured or unstructured data. 

Key Features of MongoDB  

1) Document-Oriented: MongoDB stores data in JSON-like documents, making it easy to handle complex and changing data structures. 

2) Schema Flexibility: MongoDB's dynamic schema allows for on-the-fly changes to data without requiring a predefined schema. 

3) High Performance: It offers high read and write throughput due to its efficient indexing and caching mechanisms. 

4) Aggregation Framework: MongoDB's aggregation pipeline provides powerful data aggregation and transformation capabilities. 

Horizontal Scalability: Horizontal scaling through sharding is supported on MongoDB, enabling seamless distribution of data across multiple nodes. 

MongoDB is an excellent choice for applications with rapidly evolving data models and complex structures. It suits use cases such as content management systems, mobile applications, e-commerce platforms, and real-time analytics, where schema flexibility and ease of development are paramount. 

The data model is a critical aspect when comparing Cassandra vs MongoDB. Both databases belong to the NoSQL category, but their data models differ significantly, which impacts how data is organised and queried. 

Cassandra's data model is based on a wide-column store. Data is organised into column families, where each row can have a different number of columns, and the data is stored in a denormalised manner. This schema flexibility allows for efficient querying of specific data subsets and makes it well-suited for write-intensive workloads. However, it also requires careful consideration of data modelling to ensure optimal performance and avoid data duplication. 

MongoDB's data model is document oriented. Data is stored in BSON format, which is a binary representation of JSON. In this model, each document represents a record, and documents within a collection can have varying structures. This schema flexibility enables developers to handle complex and changing data structures without the need for a predefined schema. MongoDB's document-oriented model makes it easy to evolve the data model as requirements change, making it an excellent choice for applications with rapidly evolving data. 

The data model comparison between Cassandra and MongoDB boils down to a trade-off between wide-column store and document-oriented approaches. Cassandra's wide-column store excels in handling large volumes of data and high write throughput, making it suitable for time-series data and real-time analytics. In contrast, MongoDB's document-oriented model offers greater flexibility and ease of development, making it ideal for applications with dynamic data structures and evolving data requirements. 

Data Structure and Query Language  

The query language is a fundamental aspect of any database, as it enables users to interact with the data and retrieve the information they need. When comparing Cassandra and MongoDB, their query languages differ in terms of syntax and capabilities, reflecting the unique data models of each database.  

Cassandra uses CQL (Cassandra Query Language) as its query language, which is like SQL (Structured Query Language) but tailored specifically for Cassandra's wide-column store data model. CQL allows users to create and manage tables, define data types, and perform CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) operations on data. It provides a familiar interface for those experienced with SQL, making it relatively easy for developers to transition to Cassandra from traditional relational databases. 

MongoDB uses JSON-B (BSON) queries for data retrieval and manipulation. BSON is a binary representation of JSON, and MongoDB's query language allows users to query and manipulate documents in a JSON-like format. BSON queries are highly flexible and expressive, enabling users to perform complex queries on document attributes. MongoDB's query language is particularly well-suited for handling semi-structured or unstructured data, as it allows for dynamic and nested data structures. 

Scalability and Performance  

Scalability and performance are two critical factors when evaluating database systems, and they play a crucial role in handling large volumes of data and accommodating growing user demands. When comparing Cassandra vs MongoDB, both databases offer impressive scalability and performance capabilities, but they achieve them through different architectural approaches. 

Cassandra is designed for seamless horizontal scalability. Its distributed architecture follows a peer-to-peer model, allowing data to be evenly distributed across multiple nodes and data centres. As the data size grows or the number of users increases, additional nodes can be added to the cluster, ensuring linear scalability. Cassandra's ability to distribute data across nodes efficiently leads to high read and write throughput, making it an excellent choice for write-intensive workloads and real-time analytics. 

MongoDB achieves scalability through sharding. In MongoDB, data is partitioned into shards, and each shard is a separate database, enabling data distribution across multiple nodes. As data grows, additional shards can be added to the cluster, ensuring horizontal scalability. MongoDB's sharding approach also allows for load balancing and improved performance by distributing data evenly across shards. 

Both databases excel in handling large-scale data, but the choice between Cassandra and MongoDB depends on specific use cases and data requirements. Cassandra's wide-column store is optimised for high write throughput and real-time analytics, making it suitable for time-series data and applications that prioritise write operations. MongoDB's document-oriented model, with its dynamic schema and JSON-B queries, is ideal for applications with complex and evolving data structures, enabling developers to handle semi-structured or unstructured data with ease.  

Consistency and Availability  

Consistency and availability are two essential properties of a distributed database system, and they represent a trade-off in the face of network partitions or failures. When comparing Cassandra vs MongoDB, both databases approach consistency and availability differently, reflecting their architectural choices and use case priorities. 

Cassandra adheres to the AP (Availability and Partition Tolerance) side of the CAP theorem. In the event of network partitions or failures, Cassandra prioritises availability, ensuring that data remains accessible even when some nodes are unreachable. This approach allows Cassandra to deliver high availability and fault tolerance, making it well-suited for use cases where uninterrupted data access is critical. However, this comes at the expense of strong consistency, as different nodes may temporarily have slightly inconsistent data until the system converges. 

MongoDB follows the CP (Consistency and Partition Tolerance) side of the CAP theorem. MongoDB emphasises data consistency, ensuring that all nodes in the cluster have the same view of data at any given time. In the case of network partitions, MongoDB sacrifices availability to maintain data integrity and consistency. This makes MongoDB suitable for use cases where strong data consistency is essential, such as financial applications or systems with strict data integrity requirements. 

The choice between consistency and availability depends on the distinct needs of the application and its tolerance for eventual consistency. Cassandra's AP approach allows it to handle high write-throughput and real-time analytics, making it ideal for scenarios where data availability is crucial. MongoDB's CP approach prioritises data consistency, making it a good fit for applications with complex data models and where strong data integrity is paramount. 

Data Integrity and Security  

Data integrity and security are critical aspects of any database system, ensuring that data remains accurate, consistent, and protected from unauthorised access. When comparing Cassandra vs MongoDB, both databases implement data integrity and security measures, but they do so through different mechanisms and approaches. 

Cassandra ensures data integrity and fault tolerance through its data replication and distribution across nodes. Each piece of data is replicated across multiple nodes, ensuring that it is available even in the event of node failures. The decentralised architecture of Cassandra ensures that even in the face of network partitions, the data remains consistent and accurate. This makes Cassandra suitable for applications that require high availability and data resilience. 

On the other hand, MongoDB focuses on data integrity and security through role-based access control (RBAC). MongoDB's RBAC system allows administrators to define roles and assign specific privileges to users or groups, restricting access to sensitive data. By enforcing access controls at the document level, MongoDB ensures that only authorised users can read, write, or modify specific data. This fine-grained access control makes MongoDB well-suited for applications with stringent security requirements. 

Both databases also offer encryption mechanisms to protect data at rest and in transit, further enhancing data security. Cassandra and MongoDB provide support for Transport Layer Security (TLS) to encrypt data in transit while also offering options for encrypted storage of data on disk. Data integrity and security are essential considerations when choosing a database system. Cassandra's focus on fault tolerance and data replication provides robust data integrity and high availability, making it ideal for applications where data resilience is critical. MongoDB's emphasis on role-based access control ensures that sensitive data remains protected, making it a suitable choice for applications that require stringent security measures. 

Community and Ecosystem  

The strength of a database's community and ecosystem is an important aspect to consider when evaluating database systems like Cassandra and MongoDB. A vibrant and active community fosters innovation, provides support, and contributes to the continuous improvement of the database. Comparing Cassandra vs MongoDB, both databases have established strong communities and ecosystems, but they differ in terms of size, support, and adoption. 

Cassandra boasts a robust open-source community backed by the Apache Software Foundation. This large and active community continuously contributes to the development and enhancement of Cassandra, providing regular updates, bug fixes, and new features. The community's collective knowledge and expertise are valuable resources for developers, making it easier to find solutions to common issues and gain insights into best practices. Additionally, the large community translates into widespread adoption, as many companies and organisations have embraced Cassandra for their data-intensive applications. 

Similarly, MongoDB also enjoys an active and passionate community. MongoDB Inc. actively supports the open-source community and provides regular updates to the database. The community-driven MongoDB University offers comprehensive training and resources for developers and administrators. MongoDB's ecosystem includes a wide range of tools, libraries, and integrations, making it easy to integrate with other technologies and frameworks. MongoDB's popularity has led to widespread adoption across various industries, and it is backed by a strong developer community that contributes to its growth. 

Both Cassandra and MongoDB have vibrant and active communities that contribute to their success. The choice between the two databases depends on factors such as the specific requirements of the application, the expertise of the development team, and the level of support needed. 

Performance Comparison  

Performance is a critical factor in evaluating database systems like Cassandra and MongoDB, as it directly impacts the responsiveness and efficiency of data operations. When comparing Cassandra vs MongoDB, several aspects need to be considered, including read and write throughput, latency, scalability, and resource utilisation. 

Cassandra excels in high write throughput scenarios. Its distributed architecture and wide-column store data model allow it to handle large volumes of write operations with low latency. This makes Cassandra ideal for applications that require real-time data ingestion and processing, such as time-series data, logging, and real-time analytics. Additionally, Cassandra's linear scalability enables it to scale horizontally by adding more nodes, ensuring consistent performance even as data volumes grow. 

MongoDB offers high read and write performance. Its document-oriented model and BSON queries enable fast read and write operations on individual documents. MongoDB's dynamic schema and indexing capabilities contribute to efficient query execution, making it well-suited for applications that demand flexible and complex data retrieval. MongoDB's sharding capability allows it to distribute data across multiple nodes, providing horizontal scalability to handle growing workloads. 

The performance comparison between Cassandra and MongoDB varies based on the specific use case and workload characteristics. Conducting thorough performance benchmarks tailored to the application's requirements is crucial to selecting the optimal database solution. Factors such as data volume, query complexity, hardware resources, and data distribution patterns all influence performance outcomes. Cassandra and MongoDB offer different strengths in terms of performance, making them suitable for various use cases. Cassandra excels in high write throughput scenarios, while MongoDB shines in read and write performance. 

Use Case Scenarios  

The choice of Cassandra vs MongoDB depends on the specific use case and the nature of the data being managed. Each database has its unique strengths, making them more suitable for certain applications than others. 

Cassandra is an excellent choice for use cases that prioritise high availability, fault tolerance, and scalability. Its distributed architecture and wide-column store make it well-suited for handling large volumes of time-series data, real-time analytics, and write-intensive workloads. Applications in IoT (Internet of Things), financial services, social media, and sensor data processing can benefit from Cassandra's ability to handle massive data ingestion and rapid data updates. 

MongoDB is ideal for applications with rapidly evolving data models and complex data structures. Its document-oriented model and dynamic schema provide the flexibility to handle semi-structured or unstructured data, making it a preferred choice for content management systems, e-commerce platforms, and mobile applications. MongoDB's ease of development and support for complex data models make it suitable for scenarios where quick iterations and adaptability are crucial. 

Understanding the specific requirements and priorities of the application is vital in determining the appropriate database solution. Cassandra's strengths lie in high write throughput and real-time analytics, while MongoDB excels in handling evolving data structures and providing ease of development. Choosing the right database for the use case ensures optimal performance, scalability, and efficiency for the application's data management needs. 

Conclusion  

The Cassandra vs MongoDB debate is vital to have as both are powerful NoSQL databases, offering distinct advantages for specific use cases. Understanding the unique strengths of each database helps make an informed decision that aligns with the specific needs of your project or application. Hopefully, this blog helped you on the way to making this decision.  

Unlock endless possibilities in the digital world - Master App and Web Development today !  

Frequently Asked Questions

Upcoming data, analytics & ai resources batches & dates.

Fri 22nd Nov 2024

Fri 21st Feb 2025

Fri 25th Apr 2025

Fri 20th Jun 2025

Fri 22nd Aug 2025

Fri 17th Oct 2025

Fri 19th Dec 2025

Get A Quote

WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

My employer

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry

• Business Analysis
• Lean Six Sigma Certification

Share this course

Biggest black friday sale.

We cannot process your enquiry without contacting you, please tick to confirm your consent to us for contacting you about your enquiry.

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry.

We may not have the course you’re looking for. If you enquire or give us a call on 01344203999 and speak to our training experts, we may still be able to help with your training requirements.

Or select from our popular topics

• ITIL® Certification
• Scrum Certification
• ISO 9001 Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel Courses
• Explore more courses

Press esc to close

Fill out your  contact details  below and our training experts will be in touch.

Fill out your   contact details   below

Thank you for your enquiry!

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go over your training requirements.

Back to Course Information

Fill out your contact details below so we can get in touch with you regarding your training requirements.

* WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

Preferred Contact Method

No preference

Back to course information

Fill out your  training details  below

Fill out your training details below so we have a better idea of what your training requirements are.

HOW MANY DELEGATES NEED TRAINING?

HOW DO YOU WANT THE COURSE DELIVERED?

Online Instructor-led

Online Self-paced

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS COURSE?

Next 2 - 4 months

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR ENQUIRING?

Looking for some information

Looking for a discount

I want to book but have questions

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go overy your training requirements.

Your privacy & cookies!

Like many websites we use cookies. We care about your data and experience, so to give you the best possible experience using our site, we store a very limited amount of your data. Continuing to use this site or clicking “Accept & close” means that you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about our privacy policy and cookie policy cookie policy .

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. Please visit our cookie policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept & close'.

Apache Cassandra vs MongoDB: The Battle Card You Need

Richard Lawrence ·

Table of Contents

Introduction.

In this guide, we will delve into a detailed comparison between Apache Cassandra and MongoDB . We will explore their architectural differences, their approach to data modeling, query languages, performance, scalability, support, pricing, and more. We will also highlight their respective use cases , helping you gain insights into when to use one over the other .

Selecting the right database system can be a pivotal decision for the performance and scalability of an application or service. With the paradigm shift from traditional relational databases towards NoSQL databases, the options have drastically increased . Among these NoSQL databases, Apache Cassandra and MongoDB stand out due to their unique sets of features and their ability to handle large volumes of data, offering robustness, scalability, and flexibility.

Apache Cassandra, a distributed, wide column store NoSQL database, is known for its exceptional handling of write-heavy workloads and geographically distributed data. On the other hand, MongoDB, a general-purpose document database, is renowned for its versatility , offering a flexible data model and a rich set of features, making it suitable for a wide range of applications and use cases.

The choice between Apache Cassandra and MongoDB often depends on the specific requirements of the application and the nature of the data being handled. Each database has its strengths and weaknesses , and understanding these aspects is vital for choosing the appropriate database for your needs.

Understanding Apache Cassandra and MongoDB

Apache Cassandra is a highly scalable, distributed, wide column store NoSQL database that was originally developed by Facebook and later open-sourced under the Apache Software Foundation . It is designed to handle vast amounts of data across many commodity servers , providing high availability with no single point of failure . This database excels particularly in handling write-heavy workloads and is known for its robustness.

Cassandra follows a distributed architecture with multiple master nodes to ensure high availability and data durability. Its data model revolves around a wide column store design which includes rows and variable sets of columns. The database is fundamentally designed for high-speed read and write operations , making it an excellent choice for applications requiring real-time data analysis.

When it comes to querying, Cassandra employs its own query language , known as Cassandra Query Language (CQL) . CQL is similar to SQL in syntax, making it easier for developers to work with. However, it's important to note that Cassandra sacrifices ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability) compliance for performance and low latency.

On the other hand, MongoDB is a document-oriented, general-purpose database that stores data in key-value pairs in a binary representation called BSON (Binary JSON). It has been widely acclaimed for its flexible data model , allowing developers to store rich, unstructured, and semi-structured data types with relative ease. Unlike Cassandra's wide-column approach, MongoDB's document model makes it a more suitable choice for applications requiring multi-object transactions with complex relationships between entities.

MongoDB uses a single master node , improving consistency but potentially creating a single point of failure . However, high availability can be achieved using replica sets that keep multiple copies of the data. MongoDB embraces JSON-based queries , providing an intuitive and powerful query language including secondary index support, making complex queries easier and faster.

Additionally, MongoDB supports ACID transactions , making it a compelling choice for applications where data consistency is paramount, including financial applications and booking systems.

Key differences in architecture and data modeling

When it comes to architecture and data modeling, Apache Cassandra and MongoDB differ significantly in their approach .

Apache Cassandra's architecture is based on a ring-like design with no single point of failure , ensuring high availability and fault tolerance. Each node in the Cassandra cluster has the same role , which enables it to service any request, thus providing high performance for write-intensive applications. This is achieved through a masterless "ring" model which gives it superior fault tolerance and linear scalability, particularly for write operations.

Cassandra’s data model is a partitioned row store with tunable consistency. Rows are organized into tables with a required primary key. The primary key is made up of one or more partition keys along with optional cluster keys . The first part of the key is hashed across many partitions distributed around the Cassandra ring. Cassandra's write and read paths are designed stemming from this architecture, optimized for high speed.

On the flip side, MongoDB's architecture consists of a single master node that handles all writes, while additional secondary nodes replicate the data from the primary node and can service read requests. This architecture can be beneficial for read-heavy workloads but can present a single point of failure if the primary node goes down . However, MongoDB addresses this issue with automatic failover to a secondary node if the primary node fails.

MongoDB's data model is based on a flexible, JSON-like documents structure that enables changing fields, ranges in content, and fields that vary from document to document. This gives it the ability to store complex data types with relative ease . MongoDB’s document model maps naturally to object-oriented programming which enables it to cover a wide array of use cases. This flexibility can make MongoDB a better fit for applications with evolving data requirements.

Performance and Scalability Comparison

When it comes to performance and scalability, both Apache Cassandra and MongoDB exhibit impressive capabilities, each tailored to different use cases and requirements .

Starting with Apache Cassandra, its distributed nature allows it to excel in write-intensive environments . It has a unique ability to handle heavy write-workloads and scale linearly as new nodes are added to the cluster, making it a preferred choice for scenarios where write throughput is more paramount than read performance . But that doesn't mean it lags in terms of read operations. By tweaking the consistency level and replication factor, one can achieve a balance between read and write performance , depending on the specific requirements of your application.

Moreover, Cassandra's multi-master architecture ensures robust performance even when nodes become unavailable or when the network is partitioned. This architecture, combined with its decentralized nature, makes it a superior option for deployments that require high availability, fault tolerance, and seamless scalability across multiple geographical locations. Whether your application needs to process thousands of transactions per second or store petabytes of data, Cassandra can handle it with aplomb.

MongoDB, on the other hand, tends to shine in scenarios where fast and complex queries are more prevalent. MongoDB's document-oriented data model and its support for secondary indexes allow it to handle diverse, complex data and perform rich, ad-hoc queries with ease . This makes it exceptionally potent for applications that require real-time analytics, content management systems, and IoT applications.

In terms of scalability, MongoDB offers automatic sharding , enabling horizontal scaling by distributing data across many servers. This auto-sharding is a key factor in MongoDB’s scalability, allowing it to accommodate large, often unpredictable workloads and ensuring that your application can handle growth in data size and user load elegantly.

However, it's important to remember that MongoDB operates in a single-master mode , where all write operations are performed on the primary node. Depending on the amount of write operations and the nature of your application, this could potentially pose as a bottleneck for your performance and scalability.

It's also worth noting that MongoDB supports ACID-compliant transactions , ensuring data consistency, which can be a crucial factor for certain applications. Whereas, Apache Cassandra trades full ACID compliance for enhanced performance and availability.

Security, Support, and Pricing

When choosing the right database for your needs, taking into account the security offered, the support available and the cost of implementation are essential. Both Apache Cassandra and MongoDB offer unique value propositions in these areas as well.

Apache Cassandra , being an open-source project under the Apache Software Foundation, benefits from a global community of developers who consistently work on enhancing its security features . Its security model includes a robust set of features such as authentication, to ensure that only authorized users have access to the database; authorization, to control user access to data; and encryption, for securing data in transit and at rest . Furthermore, the database's distributed architecture inherently minimizes risk as there is no single point of failure.

In terms of support, you can leverage the vast and vibrant Cassandra community , which is very active in contributing and assisting developers across various forums and online platforms. For enterprise-level support, you can opt for third-party solutions or commercial distributions that offer comprehensive support services .

As for pricing, being an open-source solution, using Apache Cassandra is free of cost ; however, the total cost of ownership will include factors like server and hardware costs, network costs, costs for maintenance, support, and the overhead of managing a distributed system .

On the other hand, MongoDB also offers robust security measures. These include features like authentication, authorization, auditing, and transport encryption. Additional security measures, such as field-level encryption, are available in the Enterprise and Atlas versions of MongoDB. This field-level encryption enables sensitive user data to be encrypted before it leaves the application , making it a particularly useful feature for applications dealing with sensitive information.

For support, MongoDB offers a thorough set of documentation , webinars, presentations, and an active online community. For enterprise-grade support, you have the option to use MongoDB Enterprise Advanced, which includes 24/7 support, proactive help from a dedicated technical account manager, and comprehensive legal coverage . MongoDB Atlas, the Database as a Service (DBaaS) offering, also provides built-in operational and security best practices.

Pricing for MongoDB varies. The open-source version is free, but if you need advanced features and support, MongoDB offers several paid versions . The most comprehensive support comes with MongoDB Enterprise Advanced. MongoDB Atlas, being a fully-managed solution, follows a pay-as-you-go model where the pricing will depend on factors such as the size of your databases, the number of operations performed, data transfer costs, and additional services like backups.

In conclusion, both Apache Cassandra and MongoDB come with their own set of robust security features, a wide array of support options, and differing pricing models. Your choice should be influenced by your application's specific security needs, the level of support required, and your budget .

Analyzing use cases for Cassandra and MongoDB

When choosing between Apache Cassandra and MongoDB, understanding the optimal use cases for each database can be key. Each database system shines in different scenarios and is equipped with features specifically designed to handle certain kinds of tasks and workloads.

Apache Cassandra, with its distributed nature and high write performance, is particularly well-suited to scenarios requiring large-scale data storage and manipulation. An excellent example of this can be seen in the Internet of Things (IoT) applications, where vast amounts of sensor data are generated at a high velocity. Cassandra's masterless architecture ensures there are no bottlenecks or write failures even under such heavy write workloads, making it an ideal choice for IoT data management .

Another notable use case for Apache Cassandra is in event logging systems . Given its capabilities to handle write-heavy loads and provide high availability, Cassandra proves useful for applications where system and user events need to be logged for auditing or analytics purposes . It can handle high velocity streams of event data, store it reliably, and make it available for further analysis or investigation.

Moreover, Cassandra's architecture lends itself well to applications that require real-time analysis of data , such as recommendation systems or fraud detection applications. Its lightning-fast write operations ensure that incoming data is processed and made available for analysis in real-time, enabling more responsive and accurate system behavior.

On the contrary, MongoDB, with its rich querying capabilities and flexible data model , proves immensely useful in scenarios where the data is diverse and not easily categorized into a rigid schema. Content Management Systems (CMS) exhibit one such scenario . Given a CMS's need to handle diverse types of content, ranging from text and images to videos and interactive content, MongoDB's flexible, document-oriented model provides a perfect fit.

Another significant use case for MongoDB is catalog and inventory management systems where items may have varied attributes and characteristics. MongoDB’s document-oriented data model can comfortably handle such variety without the constraints of a rigid schema, making it a top choice for such applications.

Moreover, MongoDB's support for complex, ad-hoc queries makes it well suited for real-time analytics and BI applications . Developers can leverage MongoDB's powerful query language and secondary index support to query data in complex ways, uncovering valuable insights from the data.

Lastly, the support for ACID-compliant transactions in MongoDB makes it a fitting choice for applications where data consistency is crucial . Financial applications, booking systems, or any application where data integrity and consistency cannot be compromised, can benefit from MongoDB’s ACID transactions.

Deciding between Cassandra and MongoDB: Pros and Cons

While we've discussed the features, use cases, and technical aspects of Apache Cassandra and MongoDB, it is equally important to consider the advantages and drawbacks of each system to make a truly informed decision. Let's delve into the pros and cons of Apache Cassandra and MongoDB.

Apache Cassandra

• High Availability and Fault Tolerance: Apache Cassandra's distributed architecture with no single point of failure makes it highly available and fault-tolerant. This is crucial for applications where continuous uptime is non-negotiable.
• Scalability: Cassandra shines in its ability to linearly scale with the addition of new nodes, enabling it to handle increasing volumes of data comfortably. This characteristic makes it ideal for organizations anticipating rapid growth or data-intensive applications.
• Write-Heavy Workloads: Cassandra's design makes it especially capable of managing high-velocity, write-heavy workloads. Applications that rapidly generate large volumes of data such as IoT or event logging systems can benefit from Cassandra's robust write operations.
• Geographically Distributed Deployments: Given its distributed architecture and multi-master design, Cassandra is well-suited for deployments across multiple geographic locations.
• Complexity: Cassandra's distributed nature and its unique data model can make it challenging to set up and manage, especially for database administrators accustomed to traditional relational databases.
• Limited Data Aggregation and Analytics: While Cassandra excels in write operations, it's not designed for rich data aggregation or analytics. If your use case requires complex data analysis or aggregation, Cassandra might not be the best fit.
• Flexible Data Model: MongoDB’s document-oriented data model offers immense flexibility, allowing for the storage of diverse, complex, and evolving data structures. This can be especially useful for applications with varied or changing data requirements.
• Rich Querying Capabilities: MongoDB's powerful query language and secondary indexes enable fast and complex queries, which is particularly useful for real-time analytics and searching through diverse data.
• ACID Compliant Transactions: MongoDB supports ACID transactions, ensuring high data consistency. This is a significant advantage for applications where data integrity is paramount.
• Sharding and Scalability: MongoDB's built-in support for automatic sharding allows for horizontal scalability, accommodating large and unpredictable workloads.
• Single Point of Write Operation: MongoDB operates with a single master node that handles all write operations, potentially creating a bottleneck for write-intensive applications.
• Lack of Joins: MongoDB doesn't support joins, which could be a limitation for applications that require complex data relationships.
• Cost: The fully managed MongoDB Atlas, which comes with additional features and enterprise-grade support, follows a pay-as-you-go model which might prove costly for some organizations.

Summary (with Battle Card Image)

In conclusion, Apache Cassandra and MongoDB, both being NoSQL, open-source databases, offer unique sets of features that make them suitable for different types of applications and workloads .

While Cassandra excels in handling write-heavy workloads, providing high availability and fault tolerance, and scaling linearly, MongoDB shows strength in handling diverse, complex data and performing fast, complex queries, and offering ACID compliant transactions.

Their architectural differences, data modeling technique, performance, scalability, security measures, community support, and pricing models cater to different kinds of needs and requirements. Therefore, the choice between the two should be made based on the specific needs of your application, the nature of the data being handled, and other factors such as your budget and need for support.

Understanding their respective strengths and weaknesses, knowing their optimal use cases, and aligning them with your specific application requirements and constraints will ensure that you make a well-informed decision and leverage each system to its fullest potential .

About Richard Lawrence

Cassandra vs. MongoDB: Navigating the NoSQL Landscape

‍ MongoDB and Cassandra are two prominent NoSQL databases , each with unique features and advantages. While MongoDB is a widely-known, document database with a document-oriented database, Cassandra shines as a columnar store built for scalability. This article provides an exhaustive comparison Cassandra vs. MongoDB, dissecting their strengths, weaknesses, and the best scenarios for their usage.

As organizations seek to harness the power of data to drive innovation and competitiveness, the data landscape has witnessed a significant transformation, giving rise to a class of databases known as NoSQL.

NoSQL databases can handle large-scale unstructured or semi-structured data, accommodating the dynamic nature of modern applications.

In this realm, MongoDB and Apache Cassandra stand out as prominent contenders, each championing distinct data storage, retrieval, and scalability approaches.

In this article, we will explore both database solutions and their key features before diving into a detailed comparison of the two and highlighting factors to help you choose the right database for your needs.

What is MongoDB?

MongoDB is a leading non-relational database designed to handle modern data challenges, offering flexibility, scalability, and performance. 

It diverges from traditional relational databases , employing a document-oriented data model and dynamic schema that accommodates structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data.

MongoDB’s rich set of features makes it an excellent choice for applications where data is dynamic and requires the flexibility to adapt to evolving business needs. 

It is a widely adopted solution across various industries and use cases, including content management systems, e-commerce platforms, social media applications, real-time analytics solutions, and more.

Key Features

The NoSQL database boasts the following features:

• Document-Oriented:  MongoDB stores data in BSON (Binary JSON) documents, which is an optimized JSON format.
• Flexible Data Model:  No rigid schema requirements; documents within a collection can have varying structures.
• Horizontal Scalability:  Supports sharding for distributing data across multiple servers, enabling seamless scaling.
• Aggregation Framework:  Powerful tool for performing complex data transformations and analysis.
• Full-Text Search:  Built-in text search capabilities for efficient querying of text-based data.
• Geospatial Capabilities:  Supports geospatial indexing and querying for location-based data.
• High Availability:  Provides replication for fault tolerance and data redundancy.
• Automatic Failover:  Automatic detection and recovery of replica set failures.

What is Apache Cassandra?

Apache Cassandra is a distributed database and NoSQL database management system that can handle massive amounts of data across multiple servers while ensuring high availability and fault tolerance.

It’s particularly suited for applications that require real-time performance, high write throughput, and linear scalability.

Cassandra is used to store and manage time-series data, IoT (Internet of Things) data, and sensor data. It also facilitates user activity tracking, maintaining catalogs and product databases, and messaging systems.

The non-relational database has the following features:

• Distributed Architecture:  Cassandra’s decentralized architecture ensures data distribution across nodes. Every node can act as a coordinator, enhancing fault tolerance and preventing single points of failure.
• Column-Family Model:  Organizes data into column families, enabling efficient querying and storage for structured data.
• Flexible Schema:  While structured, it accommodates dynamic and varied data models.
• Partition and Clustering Keys:  Partition keys distribute data across multiple nodes, while clustering keys determine row order within partitions.
• High Write Throughput:  Built to handle a high volume of write operations.
• Linear Scalability:  Cassandra scales horizontally, allowing you to add multiple master nodes as data grows without compromising performance.
• Tunable Consistency:  Offers configurable consistency levels, balancing data consistency and availability according to application needs.
• Geographical Distribution:  Supports data center replication for global distribution and disaster recovery.
• Continuous Availability:  Provides automatic data repair and management, ensuring data remains available even during failures.

Cassandra vs MongoDB: A Detailed Comparison

Cassandra and MongoDB are both NoSQL databases, but they differ in their data models and use cases. Cassandra uses a wide-column store and excels at handling large volumes of write-heavy workloads across distributed systems, making it ideal for time-series data and applications requiring high scalability. MongoDB, on the other hand, employs a document-based model, offering more flexibility for complex queries and frequently changing data structures.

Here’s a table highlighting the main differences between MongoDB and Apache Cassandra:

Let’s take a closer look at how the two NoSQL databases differ:

MongoDB uses a flexible and rich JSON-like data format called BSON (Binary JSON). Documents are organized into collections, which are similar to tables in relational databases. However, collections do not enforce a fixed schema, meaning different documents in the same collection can have varying fields.

Cassandra uses a columnar storage format . Data is organized into tables with rows and columns, making it more suitable for structured data. While tables have a predefined schema, each row can have a different number of columns. This allows for flexibility in terms of data structure.

Consistency and Availability

MongoDB provides tunable consistency levels, allowing you to configure how strict or relaxed the consistency of data reads and writes should be.

By default, MongoDB prioritizes consistency and partition tolerance (CP) in its consistency model. This means that MongoDB will attempt to maintain data consistency in the event of network partitions or node failures, even if it might impact availability.

MongoDB offers replica sets, which are groups of database instances that store the same data. In a replica set, one node is designated as the primary node or master node, responsible for handling write operations. Secondary nodes, known as replicas, replicate data from the primary and can be configured for read operations.

MongoDB allows you to configure read preferences, letting you choose between consistency and availability when reading data from secondary nodes.

Cassandra has availability and partition tolerance (AP) , favoring availability and fault tolerance in the face of network partitions. This means that in the event of network partitions, Cassandra might return data that is not up-to-date (eventual consistency).

The database also enables geographically distributed data so teams can distribute data across multiple geographic regions for improved performance and disaster recovery.

Its architecture is designed to ensure that the database remains available even in the presence of node failures. You can configure consistency levels per read or write operation. This enables you to balance the trade-off between data consistency and availability based on specific use cases.

Deployment options for MongoDB:

• Self-hosted On-Premise:  You can install and manage MongoDB on your own servers or data centers, giving you complete control over the hardware and configuration. This is suitable for organizations with the resources and expertise to manage their own infrastructure.
• MongoDB Atlas:  Atlas is a fully managed database service provided by MongoDB. It offers a cloud-based deployment option and supports multiple cloud providers, automatic backups, scaling, security features, and monitoring.
• Managed Services:  Managed service providers offer MongoDB hosting with varying levels of management and customization. 

Deployment options for Cassandra:

• Self-hosted On-Premise:  Like MongoDB, you can set up and manage your own Cassandra clusters on your infrastructure. This gives you control over the hardware and configurations.
• Cloud Services:  Various cloud providers offer Cassandra as a managed service, such as Amazon Keyspaces and DataStax Astra . These services simplify setup, scaling, and management tasks.
• Managed Services:  Some third-party companies provide managed Cassandra hosting, offering services like maintenance, monitoring, and optimization.
• Hybrid Approaches:  Organizations can also choose hybrid deployment models, using a mix of on-premise and cloud-based instances to optimize for their specific needs.

Scalability

MongoDB enables horizontal scalability through a feature called “sharding.” Sharding involves distributing data across multiple servers or clusters called shards. Each shard can be hosted on a separate server, enabling the database to handle larger datasets and higher loads.

The database’s sharding architecture includes an automatic balancer that redistributes data across shards to ensure even data distribution and optimal performance. You can also add new shards dynamically as your data and traffic increase.

Cassandra’s ring-based architecture automatically divides data into partitions. These partitions are distributed across nodes in the cluster. Each node is responsible for a range of partitions.

It also uses a masterless architecture, where all nodes have equal roles in read and write operations. This means you can have multiple master nodes to run many write operations concurrently.

Data is replicated across nodes based on the replication factor defined for each keyspace, ensuring high availability and fault tolerance. You can add new nodes for better scalability.

Query Language

MongoDB uses MQL (MongoDB Query Language), which serves as a Query API based on a rich set of operators and methods for querying and manipulating documents in BSON format.

You can perform range queries, geospatial queries, equality checks, and even queries on embedded arrays and objects within documents.

The NoSQL database also offers a robust aggregation framework that allows you to perform complex transformations and computations on data, including grouping, filtering, sorting, and projecting.

Example MongoDB Query:

Cassandra uses CQL (Cassandra Query Language), which is similar to SQL in terms of syntax but adapted to Cassandra’s architecture.

The database’s query language supports SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE statements like SQL. It uses partition keys and clustering keys to distribute data and control row order within partitions. You can create secondary indexes to query columns other than primary keys efficiently.

CQL queries also allow you to specify consistency levels. CQL’s SQL-like syntax can be easier for those familiar with relational databases.

Example CQL Query:

Development and Ecosystem

MongoDB’s development experience is flexible and easy to use. It allows developers to work with JSON-like documents, which is familiar and intuitive. Its dynamic schema also enables rapid application development.

MongoDB offers official drivers for a wide range of programming languages, including Java, Python, Node.js, and more. It also integrates with frameworks and libraries, like Mongoose for Node.js, which simplifies data modeling and validation .

The platform has a large and active community, contributing to tutorials, forums, and third-party tools.

Cassandra is great for developers familiar with SQL databases since CQL is similar in syntax. They can use the database’s command-line tool for interacting using CQL statements.

However, working with Cassandra’s column-oriented architecture requires in-depth knowledge of partitions and clustering keys.

Cassandra also offers official drivers for many programming languages, including Java, Python, and C#, and libraries like DataStax Java Driver.

The database solution has a growing community, although it might be smaller than established platforms.

Security Measures

The database offers the following security features:

• Authentication:  MongoDB supports various authentication mechanisms, including SCRAM-SHA-1 and SCRAM-SHA-256, which require a username and password for access.
• Authorization:  It offers role-based access control (RBAC) to grant or restrict user privileges at the database or collection level.
• Encryption:  MongoDB supports data-in-transit encryption using TLS/SSL and data-at-rest encryption using WiredTiger’s encryption feature.
• Auditing:  MongoDB Enterprise includes auditing capabilities, allowing you to track and log actions like authentication, authorization, and data access.
• IP Whitelisting:  Enable connections to MongoDB only from specified IP addresses.

The database management system offers the following out-of-the-box security features:

• Authentication:  Cassandra supports password-based and client-to-node authentication using SASL, allowing user authentication with credentials.
• Authorization:  It provides role-based access control for defining permissions and granting access to specific keyspaces and tables.
• Encryption:  Cassandra supports SSL/TLS encryption of data-in-transit between clients and nodes.
• Auditing:  Cassandra has audit logging capabilities to record activities, which might require additional configuration.
• IP Whitelisting:  You can configure Cassandra to allow connections only from specific IP addresses.

Both databases also have documentation outlining the best practices for optimizing security and compliance. However, specific compliance certifications might depend on the deployment and additional configurations.

Performance Considerations

MongoDB’s performance is impacted by factors like data size, schema design, indexing, sharding, query patterns, and hardware. MongoDB provides a  Benchmarking Guide  to help users conduct performance testing specific to their use cases.

Developers can use optimization techniques, including index and query optimization, efficient sharding strategies, and caching layers to improve performance.

Cassandra’s performance depends on parameters like cluster size, data distribution, consistency levels, compression, and hardware. Benchmarks should be performed in an environment that closely resembles the production setup.

To facilitate better operations, data engineers can optimize the data model, consistency level, compaction strategy, and Java Virtual Machine (JVM) settings.

Architecture

Cassandra employs a masterless, peer-to-peer distributed architecture where all nodes are equal, allowing for high availability and horizontal scalability. It uses a ring topology and consistent hashing to distribute data across nodes, ensuring fault tolerance and seamless scaling.

MongoDB, on the other hand, uses a primary-secondary architecture in replica sets, with one primary node handling writes and secondaries for read scaling. For larger deployments, MongoDB can use sharding to distribute data across multiple replica sets. 

Cassandra uses a wide-column store model, which requires careful upfront schema design. Data is organized into tables (column families) with rows and columns. Cassandra's schema design focuses on denormalization and data duplication to achieve optimal read performance, often resulting in wide rows.

MongoDB uses a document-based model with a flexible, schema-less design. Documents within a collection can have different fields, and the structure can be changed dynamically. This flexibility allows for easier adaptation to changing data requirements and is well-suited for scenarios where the data structure might evolve over time. MongoDB's approach generally leads to more normalized data structures, though denormalization is also possible for performance optimization.

Real-world Implementations

Let’s look at some real-world examples of businesses using MongoDB and Apache Cassandra:

Forbes has used MongoDB  for their CMS (Content Management System) since 2011. Then, in 2019, the leading business magazine migrated its platform to Google Cloud and MongoDB Atlas.

The move to the cloud architecture has helped Forbes speed up their build time for new products and fixes by 58%, accelerated their release cycle, reduced the total cost of ownership, and launched seven new newsletters, which led to a 28% increase in subscription rate. 

Netflix uses Apache Cassandra  as its primary data store for all persistent data. They use the platform as the foundation for other applications that help them track user activity, viewing history, and recommendations. 

Early in 2023, they also used Cassandra to build a scalable annotation service,  Marken .

Cassandra’s ability to handle high write and read loads, along with its distributed architecture, aligns well with Netflix’s requirement for real-time, low-latency data access across a massive user base.

Key Takeaways:

MongoDB is often used for flexible and evolving data structures, as in content management and applications requiring dynamic schema.

Cassandra shines in use cases demanding high write and read scalability, especially in IoT applications, real-time analytics, and recommendation engines.

Choosing Between MongoDB and Cassandra

Here are factors to consider when deciding to use MongoDB or Cassandra:

• Data Model:  Apache Cassandra is suitable if your data is mostly structured. MongoDB’s flexible schema is better if you handle unstructured data or require frequent schema changes.
• Query Complexity:  MongoDB suits applications with complex queries, including aggregation and nested data.
• Read vs. Write:  If your application demands high write throughput, real-time analytics, or IoT data, Apache Cassandra’s write scalability might be beneficial. MongoDB could be a better choice if your application focuses on complex querying, data retrieval, or read-heavy workloads.
• Consistency vs. Availability:  MongoDB’s tunable consistency levels are ideal if maintaining data consistency is critical. Cassandra’s AP characteristics are useful for applications requiring high availability and fault tolerance.

Ultimately, the choice between MongoDB and Apache Cassandra depends on your application’s specific requirements, growth projections, team expertise, and operational preferences. 

It’s recommended to prototype and perform small-scale tests with both databases to evaluate their performance and suitability for your use case before making a final decision.

MongoDB, Cassandra, and Airbyte: Bridging the Integration Gap

Whether you use MongoDB or Cassandra for your projects, you need to be able to efficiently collect and load source data to your databases. This is done using data connectors . Connectors are also vital for data transfer between different applications and databases. 

Enter Airbyte , a universal data integration platform. It has 350+ connectors that simplify data synchronization between MongoDB, Cassandra, and other data destinations. Using these pre-built connectors, developers no longer have to individually pull data from each source to their database management tool.

Instead, they can deploy no-code data pipelines in minutes to quickly extract data from applications and load them into storage. You can also build custom connectors in 10 minutes using our no-code Connector Builder .

MongoDB excels with its flexible, schema-less data model and dynamic querying capabilities. On the other hand, Apache Cassandra’s column-oriented data model and SQL-like querying make it a strong contender for scenarios requiring high write scalability, real-time analytics, and IoT data management .

Both databases have found their niches, powering diverse applications from content-heavy platforms to real-time analytics engines. When deciding between MongoDB and Cassandra, evaluate your project’s requirements, current ecosystem, deployment options, and security features. Enhance your understanding of MongoDB by exploring another insightful article on MongoDB vs PostgreSQL . Compare and discover the best fit for your database needs

Head over to the Airbyte blog to learn more about different databases and how to capitalize on them.

Suggested Reads:

DynamoDB vs MongoDB

Types of NoSQL Databases

About the Author

Aditi Prakash is an experienced B2B SaaS writer who has specialized in data engineering, data integration, ELT and ETL best practices for industry-leading companies since 2021.

Table of contents

Get your data syncing in minutes, join our newsletter to get all the insights on the data stack., integrate with 300+ apps using airbyte, integrate and move data across 300+ apps using airbyte., related posts.

Cassandra vs MongoDB Performance: A Battle of the NoSQL DBs

When weighing Cassandra vs. MongoDB, performance, design, and operational variables top the list of considerations. While both systems' approaches to data storage and manipulation lure users in, the actual processes are different enough to polarize their user bases.

This post explores the differences you'll encounter when using Cassandra and MongoDB databases. Retaining a pragmatic mindset, we'll also help the reader understand how a shrewd analyst/engineer can implement both options. This way, you can experience the best in terms of performance, compatibility, and ease of use. 

Quick disclaimer: We're not going to favor either data storage system. Neither will we limit you to using just one of the two. Instead, and most importantly, you should know which option works best for explicit use cases. 

Here's what we'll cover in this comparison of Cassandra and MongoDB:

• Architectural and handling differences between Cassandra and MongoDB
• The robustness of Cassandra compared to MongoDB
• The support provided for each database
• The top use cases for Cassandra and MongoDB

We could go on and on, doing side-by-side contrasts of the features, capabilities, and shortcomings of the two database solutions. However, these four factors should give every reader the knowledge necessary to pick Cassandra, MongoDB, or a blend of both. 

Let's start with a brief history of both platforms, shall we? 

MongoDB started back in 2007 as an in-house project to handle specific problems faced by DoubleClick. The privately owned marketing company was running thousands of ads concurrently and needed agility and scalability. This need inspired them to create MongoDB. The platform has always been free, but certain features and dedicated instances attract a subscription fee to the team supporting the platform. 

Cassandra was created at Facebook's HQ in Menlo Park, California, in 2008, for use in Facebook's messaging search module. The developers named Cassandra after a Trojan priestess cursed to speak true prophecies. Cassandra has always been free, and it's now managed by the Apache foundation. 

Architectural differences: Cassandra vs. MongoDB

To start with, both database solutions are distributed by design. With Cassandra, your data is stored in non-relational partitions just as you insert them—much like any other NoSQL platform would. MongoDB takes the NoSQL concept a step further by being document-based. This means every time you insert data into a MongoDB instance, a (JSON-type) document with the values and their metadata is generated. 

It's advisable to install Cassandra instances on multiple machines to create a network of nodes. This way, you get more storage options and increased availability over your desired access points. In fact, Cassandra thrives on this node-based topology. You'll see how as we discuss other features in ensuing sections. 

Cassandra's robustness compared to MongoDB

Several differences start showing up when accessing stored data from the two database options. Firstly, how do you get access? When spread across nodes, Cassandra maintains copies of your data based on a decided replication factor. Cassandra is famed for being one of the most resilient data storage options. Each node you add to your cluster adds to its performance and reliability factors. 

Every node on the distributed machines running Cassandra whispers  its contents to the rest of the network. This means data created on a Cassandra node in Europe (for example) is instantly available to machines in the U.S. If for any reason a node is down, you can still access its data through a coordinator system that retains copies of the data it allocated to remote partitions upon storage. This is much like how cache works. 

This Cassandra feature is not available by default with MongoDB. To start with, you have to install the cluster version of the platform to get anything similar. When done, you get more of the network benefits of cluster instances than hard coded functions as is the case with Cassandra. This is not to say you can't build these as your MongoDB database grows. In fact, the community around MongoDB has been instrumental to this end. 

Community is a key feature in the growth of both database options. Let's examine that in more detail. 

Support strategies for MongoDB and Cassandra

Every database storage option attracts a community of developers around it. In addition to the vendor's efforts, such a crowd is continuously improving how we use the platform. The MongoDB community includes a university resource pool to learn as you build alongside thousands of users managing over a million instances across the world. 

Compared to MongoDB, Cassandra is an Apache project . This fact alone attracts thousands of contributors actively participating in an open-source repo . Couple this with fully packed Slack channels constantly discussing new patches and builds, and you're sure to get help whenever you face a problem with your Cassandra instances. 

Top use cases for Cassandra and MongoDB

Cassandra is perfect for highly scalable applications in the cloud. The fact that it improves resilience as you add nodes reduces the hardware/resource thirst over time. Its design also makes it a favored data handling platform for copious amounts of data with speed and sustained availability. 

MongoDB is useful when building apps across all business fronts—particularly mobile apps with infinite scaling possibilities. The document storage method it uses makes it quick to access—and later share—locally created information across networks. This makes it perfect for single-view data application development. 

Companies using Cassandra include Yelp, Uber, and The New York Times. By contrast, eBay, Google, and Adobe currently use MongoDB. 

Getting the best from your database management system

While both of these database storage options carry specific advantages you might want to leverage, you can get the best from both through careful planning. For instance, you might want nodes running across the world to handle large amounts of data from your apps. At the same time, you may be building mobile apps that will benefit from the document storage method consistent with MongoDB. 

Which option is best for your company?

Well, that depends on what matters more for your needs: structure flexibility or extended availability across regions and add that to how much data you're handling. In all fairness, any database can handle the load startups need at the very beginning, so you must consider your growth when picking out which to use for development and which works for corporate data management. 

One of the surest ways to get the best of both worlds is to have both databases handling your data. This can even be compounded by having their instances running on different cloud services providers across different regions to guarantee uptime as well as security by default. 

Once your database is live, you can then pull data for presentation and other ETL functions through third-party platforms like Panoply. This way, it won't matter so much what platform you're using for your application's backend and which one you prefer to store internationally accessible data with. Instead, you get to combine both and present it where it matters: in the hands of decision-makers. 

Taurai Mutimutema

Taurai is a systems analyst with a knack for writing, which was probably sparked by the need to document technical processes during code and implementation sessions. He enjoys learning new technology and talks about tech even more than he writes.

Also Check Out

Get panoply updates on the fly., work smarter, better, and faster with monthly tips and how-tos..

Cassandra vs. MongoDB: A Detailed Comparison

Introduction ‍

‍ Businesses collect more data than ever, requiring them to rely on data-driven decisions. Traditional Relational Databases can't keep up; they lack scalability and can't process Unstructured Data. In the early 2000s, NoSQL databases were quickly adopted by software giants who recognized their potential. However, due to limited capabilities, they weren't deemed general-purpose databases. Each NoSQL had a specific purpose and addressed a particular workload requirement.

These databases are designed for scalability. Popular NoSQL Databases include MongoDB, Apache Cassandra, Oracle NoSQL Database, and Apache HBase. Your business and data requirements should be considered when selecting the best NoSQL database .

Cassandra and MongoDB are two early NoSQL databases. Cassandra is a distributed hybrid of a tabular and key-value store, while MongoDB is a distributed document data model.

This article will give you the knowledge to decide which relational database management system, Apache Cassandra or MongoDB, best suits your business needs.

Since Cassandra has many different distributions, in this blog, we will focus specifically on Apache Cassandra in this article.

What are NoSQL Databases, and Why Do We Need One? 

NoSQL is a non-relational database that does not follow the table model of traditional relational databases. This type of database is designed for massive scalability and can store, manage and analyze large amounts of data. 

They are often used for real-time web applications, analytics, and other big data workloads where speed and availability pull data are essential. NoSQL stands for "Not only SQL" because it does not require Structured Query Language (SQL) to access data.

NoSQL is classified into four categories: column stores, document stores, key-value stores, and graph databases. It provides a flexible and dynamic, flexible data model with, high scalability, and performance compared to traditional relational databases.

With the explosive growth of data, companies need the ability to store and deploy databases that can accommodate large workloads without losing performance or availability. NoSQL databases provide flexibility regarding schema design and can handle structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data. NoSQL databases are necessary for businesses that store large amounts of data. 

They can also be used in applications where low latency is essential, such as real-time analytics, content management systems or web applications with high user traffic. NoSQL databases, such as search engines, are also great for applications that need to access a large amount of data quickly.

What is Cassandra? 

Apache Cassandra is an open-source distributed database . It's a hybrid of a tabular and key-value store, but it uses its own data model. Cassandra is designed to handle large amounts of data across many commodity servers while providing high availability with no single point of failure. It is a highly distributed NoSQL database, meaning all its nodes are equal and can handle the same tasks.

Cassandra uses asynchronous masterless replication, meaning the same data once is replicated across multiple nodes for fault tolerance. It does not have a single point of failure, as all nodes in the cluster can handle read and write requests. Cassandra also includes tunable consistency levels, flexible data storage, and easy scalability.

Cassandra has built-in replication and complete fault tolerance on multiple commodity servers. It is highly scalable and can easily handle petabytes of data. Cassandra powers the world's most popular applications, including Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, and eBay.

What is MongoDB? 

MongoDB is an open-source, document-oriented NoSQL database . It stores data in collections of documents in the form of key-value pairs. MongoDB is a distributed database that allows for horizontal scaling and high availability with no single point of failure. It's designed to be flexible, making it ideal for rapid development and agile methodologies. MongoDB is great for applications that need to quickly access a large amount of data, such as e-commerce and search engines.

MongoDB uses JSON-like documents with dynamic schemas, making storing and query data easier than relational databases. It also supports various languages including Java, Node.js, Go, and Python. MongoDB is designed to be scalable and can easily handle petabytes of data. It also allows for easy replication across multiple nodes for fault tolerance.

Cassandra vs. MongoDB: Similarities 

Both Cassandra and MongoDB are open-source NoSQL databases that store large amounts of data. Here are the similarities between the two databases:

• Both are distributed, allowing for scalability and high availability with no single point of failure.
• Both support flexible data models, making them well-suited for unstructured or semi-structured data.
• Both have built-in replication for fault tolerance.
• Both have easy scalability, allowing for the handling of petabytes of data.
• Both provide tunable consistency levels to ensure availability and performance.
• Both allow for fast writes and reads in distributed environments.
• Both support multiple languages such as Java, Node.js, Go, and Python.
• Both are used in popular applications such as Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, and eBay.
• Both use JSON-like documents with dynamic schemas for data storage and query processing.

Cassandra vs MongoDB: Differences 

Although Cassandra and MongoDB have many similarities, they have some differences. Here are the main differences:

• Cassandra uses a tabular data model while MongoDB uses a document-oriented data model .
• Cassandra has an asynchronous masterless replication while MongoDB has synchronous replication with primary/secondary nodes.
• MongoDB supports secondary indexes while Cassandra does not.
• MongoDB offers in-built ad hoc queries and stored procedures for querying data, while Cassandra does not have such features.
• Cassandra has better performance for write operations compared to MongoDB.
• MongoDB offers more flexibility when it comes to schema design and data manipulation.

Code Syntax for Cassandra vs MongoDB 

CQL (Cassandra Query Language):

SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE name = 'John';

db.table1.find({name: 'John'})

Pros and Cons of Cassandra 

Cassandra has many advantages and disadvantages lets see them.

• High scalability
• Easy data distribution across multiple nodes
• Fault-tolerant and highly available
• Tunable consistency levels for better availability and performance
• Supports various programming languages such as Java, Node.js, Go, and Python

Disadvantages:

• No support for secondary indexes
• No in-built query language
• No support for stored procedures and ad-hoc queries

Pros and Cons of MongoDB 

MongoDB also has its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:

• Flexible data models for semi-structured and unstructured data sets
• Built-in replication for high availability and fault tolerance
• Support for secondary indexes to improve query performance
• In-built ad hoc queries and stored procedures for querying and manipulating data
• Supports multiple programming languages such as Java, Node.js, Go, and Python
• Not suitable for complex transactions
• No support for multi-datacenter replication
• Slower write performance compared to Cassandra
• Data stored in JSON-like documents can be difficult to query.

Cassandra Use Cases  

Cassandra is best for applications that require high scalability and performance . It's suitable for large-scale applications with huge data sets, such as online gaming platforms and video-on-demand services. Cassandra also supports tunable consistency levels, which can benefit some applications where availability and performance are more important than data accuracy.

Cassandra also supports various programming languages, making it a great choice for applications that must be implemented in different programming languages.

It can be a good option for many geographically distributed data and systems that need data replication and fault tolerance.

Compare & Contrast 

When comparing Cassandra vs. MongoDB, both databases have strengths and weaknesses. Cassandra is better for applications requiring high scalability and performance, while MongoDB is more suitable for complex database transactions and secondary indexes. MongoDB offers more flexibility regarding schema design and data manipulation , while Cassandra does not have such features. Furthermore, Cassandra supports various programming languages, while MongoDB does not.

Ultimately, depending on your application's use case and data requirements, you should carefully consider which database to choose. Both databases can be used for the same tasks, but each one offers unique advantages and disadvantages that must be weighed before deciding. Cassandra and MongoDB have their own strengths and weaknesses, so it's important to consider your application use case before deciding which is the right choice. You can decide between these two powerful databases with little research and careful analysis.

Which option is best for your company?

That really depends on the project requirements and your use case. Cassandra and MongoDB offer excellent features for different types of applications, so it's important to carefully consider which database is best suited for your needs before deciding. 

Ultimately, both databases can be great options. However, it's up to you to decide which one is the best fit for your application . Consider the pros and cons of Cassandra vs. MongoDB, and do research to ensure that you're selecting the right option for your project. Taking the time to make an informed decision can help you save time and money in the long run.

Final Verdict 

When choosing between Cassandra and MongoDB, several factors must be considered. Each database has strengths and weaknesses that must be carefully weighed depending on the project requirements. MongoDB is better for applications that require complex transactions and secondary indexes, while Cassandra may be more suitable for large-scale projects with huge data sets. MongoDB offers more flexibility regarding schema design and data manipulation, while Cassandra is better for applications that need high performance and scalability.

Ultimately, it's important to carefully consider your application's use case before making a decision between the two databases. Researching can help you select the best option for your project and save time and money in the long run. With a little research and careful analysis, you can decide between these two powerful databases. No matter which database management tool you choose, Cassandra and MongoDB offer great features to help you create a successful application.

Businesses now commonly store data across multiple databases. To analyze this data, it must be integrated from all sources.

Businesses can create in-house data integration solutions, though this requires significant investment, or use existing platforms such as Sprinkledata . It enables businesses to track, analyze, and report on data in a single place by using database management system providing easy integration of multiple databases. Get started now!

Related Posts

Mongodb vs postgresql: choosing the right database for your project, comparing mongodb vs mysql: which database is right for your project, mongodb vs dynamodb - 11 major differences, mongodb vs. lucene: a comparative analysis for data management, mongodb vs. mongoose: understanding the differences and use cases, mongodb vs. sqlite: choosing the right database for your application, mongodb vs oracle: a comparative analysis of two leading database systems, mongodb vs redis: a comprehensive comparison for modern database solutions, mongodb vs mariadb: a comprehensive comparison for modern database solutions, mongodb vs. documentdb: a comprehensive comparison for choosing the right nosql database, 5 powerful functionalities of mongodb, mongodb vs elasticsearch : 2024 comparison, a beginner's guide to creating databases in mongodb, hadoop vs. mongodb: a comprehensive comparison for big data and nosql, unmasking the mystery: why mongodb is not recognized in your application.

Ingest, Transform and Analyze data without writing a single line of code

Join our Community

Get help, network with fellow data engineers, and access product updates..

Get started now.

Got a question? Reach out to us!

• ScaleGrid for MongoDB® , Tech Tips & Insights

MongoDB® vs Cassandra

• Aug 09, 2016

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Are you considering MongoDB® vs Cassandra as the data store for your next project?  Would you like to compare the two databases?  Cassandra and MongoDB® are both “NoSQL” databases, but the reality is that they are very different. They have very different strengths and value propositions – so any comparison has to be a nuanced one. Let’s start with initial requirements.

Neither of these databases replaces RDBMS, nor are they “ACID” databases. So If you have a transactional workload where normalization and consistency are the primary requirements, neither of these databases will work for you. You are better off sticking with traditional relational databases like MySQL , PostgreSQL , Oracle, etc. Now that we have relational databases out of the way, let’s consider the major differences between Cassandra and MongoDB® that will help you make the decision. In this post, I am not going to discuss specific features but will point out some high-level strategic differences to help you make your choice.

1.  Expressive Object Model

MongoDB® supports a rich and expressive object model. Objects can have properties and objects can be nested in one another (for multiple levels). This model is very “object-oriented” and can easily represent any object structure in your domain. You can also index the property of any object at any level of the hierarchy – this is strikingly powerful! Cassandra, on the other hand, offers a fairly traditional table structure with rows and columns. Data is more structured and each column has a specific type which can be specified during creation.

Verdict: If your problem domain needs a rich data model, then MongoDB hosting is a better fit for you.

2.  secondary indexes.

Secondary indexes are a first-class construct in MongoDB®. This makes it easy to index any property of an object stored in MongoDB® even if it is nested. This makes it really easy to query based on these secondary indexes. Cassandra has only cursory support for secondary indexes. Secondary indexes are also limited to single columns and equality comparisons. If you are mostly going to be querying by the primary key then Cassandra will work well for you.

Verdict:  If your application needs secondary indexes and needs flexibility in the query model then MongoDB® is a better fit for you.

3.  high availability.

MongoDB® supports a “single master” model. This means you have a master node and a number of slave nodes. In case the master goes down, one of the slaves is elected as master. This process happens automatically but it takes time, usually 10-40 seconds. During this time of new leader election, your replica set is down and cannot take writes. This works for most applications but ultimately depends on your needs. Cassandra supports a “multiple master” model. The loss of a single node does not affect the ability of the cluster to take writes – so you can achieve 100% uptime for writes.

Verdict: If you need 100% uptime Cassandra is a better fit for you.

4.  write scalability.

MongoDB® with its “single master” model can take writes only on the primary. The secondary servers can only be used for reads. So essentially, if you have a three-node replica set, only the master is taking writes, and the other two nodes are only used for reads. This greatly limits write scalability. You can deploy multiple shards but essentially only 1/3 of your data nodes can take writes. Cassandra with its “multiple master” model can take writes on any server. Essentially your write scalability is limited by the number of servers you have in the cluster. The more servers you have in the cluster, the better it will scale.

Verdict: If write scalability is your thing, Cassandra is a better fit for you.

5.  query language support.

Cassandra supports the CQL query language which is very similar to SQL. If you already have a team of data analysts they will be able to port over a majority of their SQL skills which is very important to large organizations. However CQL is not full blown ANSI SQL – It has several limitations (No join support, no OR clauses) etc. MongoDB® at this point has no support for a query language. The queries are structured as JSON fragments.

Verdict: If you need query language support, Cassandra is the better fit for you.

6.  performance benchmarks.

Let’s talk performance.  At this point, you are probably expecting a performance benchmark comparison of the databases.  I have deliberately not included performance benchmarks in the comparison. In any comparison, we have to make sure we are making an apples-to-apples comparison.

1.  Database model  – The database model/schema of the application being tested makes a big difference. Some schemas are well suited for MongoDB® and some are well suited for Cassandra. So when comparing databases it is important to use a model that works reasonably well for both databases. 2.  Load characteristics – The characteristics of the benchmark load are very important. E.g. In write-heavy benchmarks, I would expect Cassandra to smoke MongoDB®. However, in read-heavy benchmarks, MongoDB® and Cassandra should be similar in performance. 3.   Consistency requirements  – This is a tricky one. You need to make sure that the read/write consistency requirements specified are identical in both databases and not biased towards one participant.  Very often in a number of the ‘Marketing’ benchmarks, the knobs are tuned to disadvantage the other side. So, pay close attention to the consistency settings.

One last thing to keep in mind is that the benchmark load may or may not reflect the performance of your application. So in order for benchmarks to be useful, it is very important to find a benchmark load that reflects the performance characteristics of your application. Here are some benchmarks you might want to look at: –  NoSQL Performance Benchmarks –  Cassandra vs. MongoDB® vs. Couchbase vs. HBase

7.  Ease of Use

If you had asked this question a couple of years ago MongoDB® would be the hands-down winner. It’s a fairly simple task to get MongoDB® up and running. In the last couple of years, however, Cassandra has made great strides in this aspect of the product. With the adoption of CQL as the primary interface for Cassandra, it has taken this a step further – they have made it very simple for legions of SQL programmers to use Cassandra very easily.

Verdict: Both are fairly easy to use and ramp up.

8.  native aggregation.

MongoDB® has a built-in Aggregation framework to run an ETL pipeline to transform the data stored in the database. This is great for small to medium jobs but as your data processing needs become more complicated the aggregation framework becomes difficult to debug. Cassandra does not have a built-in aggregation framework. External tools like Hadoop, Spark are used for this.

Database Trends – SQL vs. NoSQL

9.  Schema-less Models

In MongoDB®, you can choose to not enforce any schema on your documents. While this was the default in prior versions in the newer version you have the option to enforce a schema for your documents.  Each document in MongoDB® can be a different structure and it is up to your application to interpret the data. While this is not relevant to most applications, in some cases the extra flexibility is important. Cassandra in the newer versions (with CQL as the default language) provides static typing. You need to define the type of very column upfront.

To summarize here are the important differences in table form:

Stay Ahead with ScaleGrid Insights

Dive into the world of database management with our monthly newsletter. Get expert tips, in-depth articles, and the latest news, directly to your inbox.

Related Posts

• Oct 18, 2024

Best PostgreSQL GUI [2024]

• Sep 10, 2024

What’s New at ScaleGrid – September 2024

• Sep 5, 2024

Managing PostgreSQL® High Availability – Part I: PostgreSQL Automatic Failover

Ready to get started , dive in for free.

Explore free for a full week—no credit card, no hassle.

See It in Action

Discover our platform's capabilities with a guided demo.

Ask Us Anything

Have questions? Get in touch—we're here to help.

• ScaleGrid for MySQL™
• ScaleGrid for PostgreSQL®
• ScaleGrid for MongoDB®
• ScaleGrid for Redis®
• ScaleGrid for RabbitMQ
• ScaleGrid for SQL Server®
• ScaleGrid Enterprise
• Plans & Pricing
• Startup Saver Offer
• Switch & Save Offer
• RDS Shift Advantage Offer
• ScaleGrid Blog
• Case Studies
• Documentation
• ScaleGrid API
• Our Customers

Dive into the world of database management. Receive expert tips, in-depth articles, exclusive event invitations, and free resources directly in your inbox.

MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis, Greenplum Database, RabbitMQ, and SQL Server are trademarks and property of their respective owners. Redis is a registered trademark of Redis Ltd. The Redis box logo is a mark of Redis Ltd. MongoDB is a registered trademark of MongoDB, Inc. Any rights therein are reserved to Redis Ltd. and MongoDB, Inc. Any use by ScaleGrid is for referential purposes only and does not indicate any sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation between ScaleGrid and these trademark holders. All product and service names used on this website are for identification purposes only and do not imply endorsement.

Add Headline Here