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 > >
