This column-family/column/super-column lingo that Cassandra pulls out just makes it harder to understand its data model. In fact, it's quite simple:<p>Keyspace: a hash table that holds your application data. Okay, the table is distributed among nodes (i.e.,a DHT), but it's still a hash table;<p>Row: an entry in the above hash table where each value is composed by a collection of "column-families".<p>Column Family: a key-value table (I avoid to call it a hash table because I don't remember if it's implemented as such). A better name for this thing would be 'Attribute Set'.<p>Column: it's a key-value pair (with timestamp). Thinking about it as a column just blurs the concept. Better name: 'Attribute'.<p><i>Note: it's possible to have a different set of attributes on a per-row basis (for the same Column Family), so this concept of 'column' breaks quite easily.</i><p>Super-column: key-value pair where the value is yet another key-value table! Better(?) name: 'Super-Attribute'.<p>Then Cassandra data model is in fact a nested set of key-value tables while dynamo's model is flat (just one level hash table). Oh! Last but not least, it's not a column-store. It's on-disk storage is row-oriented.
I think he makes the mistake of thinking the RDB-specific definition of those words is the absolutely definition, and that nobody else can use them if they aren't using them in exactly the same way.<p>You can't go into a new language and assume any words that appear to be the same are exactly the same. This applies to spoken language as well as computer languages. Only heartache lies down that road.