?? ScyllaDB vs. MongoDB vs. Cassandra: Performance vs. Cost Analysis

Selecting the proper NoSQL database is all about balancing performance and cost. Here's a breakdown of how ScyllaDB, MongoDB, and Cassandra stack up:

ScyllaDB

Performance:

?? Latency: Achieves P99 latencies below ten milliseconds using C++ and kernel bypass techniques, significantly outperforming MongoDB and Cassandra.

? Throughput: Handles up to 20x more operations per second than MongoDB and 5x more than Cassandra under specific workloads.

Cost:

?? Hardware Utilization: Efficient use of hardware results in fewer nodes needed, making ScyllaDB up to 19x more cost-efficient than MongoDB and 2.5x cheaper than Cassandra for large clusters.

??? Operational Costs: Simpler scaling and maintenance reduce overall costs, further lowering the total cost of ownership .

Overall Value: ScyllaDB offers excellent performance with lower hardware and operational costs, making it ideal for high-throughput, low-latency applications.

MongoDB

Performance:

?? Latency: Performs well in read-heavy applications but can have higher latency in write-intensive scenarios due to sharding complexity.

? Throughput: Suitable for applications with complex queries and dynamic schema requirements, but sharding and replica set management can impact performance.

Cost:

?? Scalability Costs: Scaling can be expensive due to multiple replica sets and complex sharding mechanisms, requiring more hardware and administrative effort.

??? Licensing and Pricing: Offers a free tier for small-scale deployments and various subscription models for larger deployments, which can add up as the application scales.

Overall Value: MongoDB provides flexibility and ease of use but can become costly for write-intensive and large-scale applications due to complex scaling requirements.

Cassandra

Performance:

?? Latency: Offers moderate latency, optimized for environments with high write throughput.

? Throughput: Excels in write-heavy operations, maintaining strong performance in distributed setups.

Cost:

?? Hardware Requirements: Extensive hardware is needed to maintain high performance, leading to higher initial and operational costs.

??? Operational Costs: While there are no licensing fees, hardware and maintenance costs can increase the total cost of ownership.

Overall Value: Cassandra provides robust performance in write-heavy environments but requires significant hardware investments, potentially leading to higher costs in large-scale deployments.

?? Conclusion

ScyllaDB stands out for high performance and cost efficiency, particularly in high-throughput, low-latency applications. MongoDB offers flexibility but can be expensive to scale. Cassandra is great for write-heavy workloads but requires substantial hardware investments.

Choosing the proper database depends on your specific needs:

?? For performance and cost efficiency, ScyllaDB is a top choice.

?? For flexibility and dynamic schema needs, MongoDB is suitable but potentially costly.

?? For write-heavy applications requiring scalability: Cassandra is robust but hardware-intensive.

Feel free to share your thoughts or experiences with these databases! #Database #NoSQL #ScyllaDB #MongoDB #Cassandra #TechAnalysis

Sources: ScyllaDB, Benchant