3 ms·
Oh please. On the one side we have a commercially competing entity arguing against HBase and on the other side we have an individual "defending" HBase who neve
by linuxhansl 13y ago
Oh please.
On the one side we have a commercially competing entity arguing against HBase and on the other side we have an individual "defending" HBase who never contributed a single line of code to open source HBase promoting their own closed source solution.
HBase is a "Sparse, Consistent, Distributed, Multidimensional, Sorted map" and at that it is pretty good.
Other stores are either not consistent or not sorted by default (which means you cannot do range scans). Some can be configured to do that, but then suddenly all those nice claims made by the commercial entities backing them just vanish.
If you do not need consistency and range scans, then do not use HBase. If you do need those HBase will be a excellent fit.
Some of the most heavyweight entities on this planet have committers to HBase (Facebook, Intel, Salesforce, to some extend Twitter, etc) as well as commercial backers such as Cloudera and Hortonworks.
Disclaimer: HBase committer here.
- dialtone 13y agoAgreed. Out of the box none of the other storage systems actually allow you to not worry about range scans at all. While HBase will repartition your data to balance the used disk space automatically, in most other systems you'll end up having to manually partition your data in different ways and then aggregate the queries across partitions. This is pretty literally the main reason why many companies use HBase. Then in the same companies you can also find a good usage for Cassandra but it'd be a different use case.