The linked article is an obviously bullshit benchmark that makes influxdb look good and cassandra look bad (by, surprise, the influxdb folks).<p>I'm far from a cassandra fanboy, but this really is just dishonest marketing. Not sure if that will work if your product is open source and the target audience are developers.<p>Some thoughts:<p>- The reason why cassandra uses so much more space to store the same data is that they've set up the cassandra table schema in such a way that cassandra needs to write the series ID string for each sample (while influxdb only needs to write the values). You easily get a 10-100x blowup just from that. There is no superior "compression" technology here but just an apples-to-oranges comparison.<p>- Then, comparing the queries is even worse, because they are testing a kind of query (aggregation) that cassandra does not support. To still get a benchmark where they're much faster, they just wrote some code that retrieves all the data from cassandra into a process and then executes the query within their own process. If anything, they're benchmarking one query tool they've written against another one of their own tools.<p>- Also, if I didn't miss anythin, the article doesn't say on what kind of cluster they actually ran this on or even if they ran both tests on the same hardware. There definitely are cassandra clusters handling more than 100k writes/sec in production right now. So I guess they picked a peculiar configuration in which they outperform cassandra in terms of write ops (given a good distribution of keys, cassandra is more or less linearly scalable in this dimension)<p>- A better target to benchmark against would probably be <a href="http://opentsdb.net/" rel="nofollow">http://opentsdb.net/</a> or <a href="http://prometheus.io/" rel="nofollow">http://prometheus.io/</a> - both seem to have somewhat similar semantics to InfluxDB (which cassandra and elasticsearch do not)<p>DISC: I also work on a distributed database product (<a href="https://eventql.io" rel="nofollow">https://eventql.io</a>) but it's neither a direct competitor to Cassandra nor InfluxDB nor any of the other products I've mentioned. I hope the comment doesn't come across as too harsh. The article raised some very big (and harsh) claims so I think it's fair to respond in tone.