HBase is awesome when you need high throughput and don't care so much
about latency. Cassandra is generally the opposite. They are
wonderfully complementary.
--
Jeff

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Lenin Gali <galile...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I second Joe.
>
> Lenin
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Stump <j...@joestump.net>
> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:04:50
> To: <user@cassandra.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: The Difference Between Cassandra and HBase
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Mark Robson wrote:
>
>> For me an important difference is that Cassandra is operationally much more 
>> straightforward - there is only one type of node, and it is fully redundant 
>> (depending what consistency level you're using).
>>
>> This seems to be an advantage in Cassandra vs most other distributed storage 
>> systems, which almost all seem to require some "master" nodes which have 
>> different operational requirements (e.g. cannot fail, need to be failed over 
>> manually or have another HA solution installed for them)
>
> These two remain the #1 and #2 reasons I recommend Cassandra over HBase. At 
> the end of the day, Cassandra is an *absolute* dream to manage across 
> multiple data centers. I could go on and on about the voodoo that is 
> expanding, contracting, and rebalancing a Cassandra cluster. It's pretty 
> awesome.
>
> That being said, we're getting ready to spin up an HBase cluster. If you're 
> wanting increment/decrement, more complex range scans, etc. then HBase is a 
> great candidate. Especially if you don't need it to span multiple data 
> centers. We're using Cassandra for our main things, and then HBase+Hive for 
> analytics.
>
> There's room for both. Especially if you're using Hadoop with Cassandra.
>
> --Joe
>
>

Reply via email to