hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hbase vs Cassandra
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 19:00:47 GMT
Another point to add is the new "HBase read high-availability using
timeline-consistent region replicas" feature from HBase 1.0 onward,
which brings HBase closer to Cassandra in term of Read Availability during
node failures.  You have a choice for Read Availability now.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10070



On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:32 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message