3 ms·

Can anyone comment on Cassandra's performance versus HBase? HBase adds the complexity of dealing with the whole HStack and clustering can be a pain if you have

Can anyone comment on Cassandra's performance versus HBase? HBase adds the complexity of dealing with the whole HStack and clustering can be a pain if you have no need to use HDFS/Zookeeper in the first place. Cassandra seems nice because its a single platform and each node is an equal member of the cluster, no need for designating HMaster, data nodes, etc. I was just wondering if Cassandra's widely regarded as less performant. I know the true answer lies in my exact use cases and weeks of initial testing, but it would be nice to hear someone's opinion first.

coolsunglasses 13y ago
Honestly, just google "HBase vs. Cassandra" and go from there. Just keep in mind that between the two, Cassandra has improved a lot more than HBase has. HBase can be an easy choice if you already have a Hadoop cluster and want to roll the results of Map-Reduce jobs into HBase keys. The DataStax crew has a decent stack for turning batch/OLAP jobs into queryable keys. If you have no need of that, want tunable consistency, favor write availability over read performance, then Cassandra might be a fit. Just uh, don't pretend Cassandra clusters are necessarily trivial to manage just because they're homogenous. IMHO: put off moving to any of these technologies as long as possible.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
espeed 13y ago
MapR M7 Tables removes much of the complexity and layers of HBase (http://www.mapr.com/products/m7 http://www.mapr.com/products/m7).