3 ms·
I'm surprised that neither HBase nor Hypertable are mentioned. Both HBase and Hypertable have much larger community and deployment than many of the mentioned al
by vicaya 17y ago
I'm surprised that neither HBase nor Hypertable are mentioned. Both HBase and Hypertable have much larger community and deployment than many of the mentioned alternatives.
- rmaccloy 17y agoI would not pick either HBase or Hypertable as an option for most of the uses people are switching to non-relational DBs/KV stores for (which I think is driven more by simplicity than needing multi-TB scalability.) They're not particularly accessible to just running make and getting started with either (I have a very large hadoop cluster at arm's reach and I found them sort of painful for other reasons...) Based on that I'm kind of surprised they put Cassandra in there, though; I would class that with Hypertable/HBase etc in one article and CouchDB/memcachedb/tokyo cabinet in another.
- vicaya 17y agoHypertable running in single node/local mode requires zero configuration and runs orders of magnitude faster than these alternatives when RAM to DB ratio is small.