hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Segel <michael_se...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: Hbase vs Cassandra
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:29:11 GMT
Well since you brought up coprocessors… lets talk about a lack of security and stability
that’s been introduced by coprocessors. ;-) 

I’m not saying that you don’t want server side extensibility, but you need to recognize
the risks introduced by coprocessors. 


> On May 31, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodionov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Couple more + for HBase
> 
> * Coprocessor framework (custom code inside Region Server and Master
> Servers), which Cassandra is missing, afaik.
>   Coprocessors have been widely used by hBase users (Phoenix SQL, for
> example) since inception (in 0.92).
> * HBase security model is more mature and align well with Hadoop/HDFS
> security. Cassandra provides just basic authentication/authorization/SSL
> encryption, no Kerberos, no end-to-end data encryption, no cell level
> security.
> 
> -Vlad
> 
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:05 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> You really have to try out both if you want to be sure.
>> 
>> The fundamental differences that come to mind are:
>> * HBase is always consistent. Machine outages lead to inability to read or
>> write data on that machine. With Cassandra you can always write.
>> 
>> * Cassandra defaults to a random partitioner, so range scans are not
>> possible (by default)
>> * HBase has a range partitioner (if you don't want that the client has to
>> prefix the rowkey with a prefix of a hash of the rowkey). The main feature
>> that set HBase apart are range scans.
>> 
>> * HBase is much more tightly integrated with Hadoop/MapReduce/HDFS, etc.
>> You can map reduce directly into HFiles and map those into HBase instantly.
>> 
>> * Cassandra has a dedicated company supporting (and promoting) it.
>> * Getting started is easier with Cassandra. For HBase you need to run HDFS
>> and Zookeeper, etc.
>> * I've heard lots of anecdotes about Cassandra working nicely with small
>> cluster (< 50 nodes) and quick degenerating above that.
>> * HBase does not have a query language (but you can use Phoenix for full
>> SQL support)
>> * HBase does not have secondary indexes (having an eventually consistent
>> index, similar to what Cassandra has, is easy in HBase, but making it as
>> consistent as the rest of HBase is hard)
>> 
>> * Everything you'll hear here is biased :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From personal experience... At Salesforce we spent a few months
>> prototyping various stores (including Cassandra) and arrived at HBase. Your
>> mileage may vary.
>> 
>> 
>> -- Lars
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ajay <ajay.garga@gmail.com>
>> To: user@hbase.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:12 PM
>> Subject: Hbase vs Cassandra
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I need some info on Hbase vs Cassandra as a data store (in general plus
>> specific to time series data).
>> 
>> The comparison in the following helps:
>> 1: features
>> 2: deployment and monitoring
>> 3: performance
>> 4: anything else
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Ajay
>> 


Mime
View raw message