Google's Cloud Bigtable is a fully managed, scalable NoSQL database service for large analytical and operational workloads with up to 99.999% availability.
We evaluated MongoDB also, but don't like the single point failure possibility. The HBase coupled us too tightly to the Hadoop world while we prefer more technical flexibility. Also HBase is designed for "cold"/old historical data lake use cases and is not typically used for …
Apache Cassandra has the best of both worlds, it is a Java based NoSQL, linearly scalable, best in class
tunable performance across different workloads, fault tolerant, distributed, masterless, time series database. We have used both Apache HBase and MongoDB for some use cases …
Apache Cassandra is a NoSQL database and well suited where you need highly available, linearly scalable, tunable consistency and high performance across varying workloads. It has worked well for our use cases, and I shared my experiences to use it effectively at the last Cassandra summit! http://bit.ly/1Ok56TK It is a NoSQL database, finally you can tune it to be strongly consistent and successfully use it as such. However those are not usual patterns, as you negotiate on latency. It works well if you require that. If your use case needs strongly consistent environments with semantics of a relational database or if the use case needs a data warehouse, or if you need NoSQL with ACID transactions, Apache Cassandra may not be the optimum choice.
Google Bigtable is ONLY suited for massive data sets which scale PetaBytes and TerraBytes. Anything under this can easily be done via dedicated VMs and open source tools. Google Bigtable is expensive and shall be used wisely. It should be utilised only where it is well suited else you would simply be wasting dollars and not utilizing its full benefits.
Continuous availability: as a fully distributed database (no master nodes), we can update nodes with rolling restarts and accommodate minor outages without impacting our customer services.
Linear scalability: for every unit of compute that you add, you get an equivalent unit of capacity. The same application can scale from a single developer's laptop to a web-scale service with billions of rows in a table.
Amazing performance: if you design your data model correctly, bearing in mind the queries you need to answer, you can get answers in milliseconds.
Time-series data: Cassandra excels at recording, processing, and retrieving time-series data. It's a simple matter to version everything and simply record what happens, rather than going back and editing things. Then, you can compute things from the recorded history.
Analytics: is at Google's heart. No on can beat Google in this space and BigTable is one of its implementation of this. The insights you gain from BigTable are simply usable in your day to day activities and can help you make real difference.
Speed: Processing TBs and PBs of data under minutes needs real efficient platform which is capable of doing much more than just processing data. All this data cannot be processed by a single machine, but rather huge pairs of machines working in conjuction with each other. BigTable's implementation is one of the finest and allows you achieve great speeds!
Interface: is great. Google has segregated required task under logically placed buttons which takes no time by users to understand and get habituated.
Cassandra runs on the JVM and therefor may require a lot of GC tuning for read/write intensive applications.
Requires manual periodic maintenance - for example it is recommended to run a cleanup on a regular basis.
There are a lot of knobs and buttons to configure the system. For many cases the default configuration will be sufficient, but if its not - you will need significant ramp up on the inner workings of Cassandra in order to effectively tune it.
User interface's responsiveness: I understand so much is going on under the hood, but laggyness is acceptable if a workload is running or being processed. In case their is not workload being process, GUI should work blazing fast. I have faced this at times, and this becomes frustrating as well.
Nothing other than this - BigTable is quite efficient platform and does exactly what it is built for.
I would recommend Cassandra DB to those who know their use case very well, as well as know how they are going to store and retrieve data. If you need a guarantee in data storage and retrieval, and a DB that can be linearly grown by adding nodes across availability zones and regions, then this is the database you should choose.
For big IT firms like us, data is very important and it only holds its value if it can make sense to us. Therefore, Bigtable's usability is priceless when it comes to decision making based on data.
We evaluated MongoDB also, but don't like the single point failure possibility. The HBase coupled us too tightly to the Hadoop world while we prefer more technical flexibility. Also HBase is designed for "cold"/old historical data lake use cases and is not typically used for web and mobile applications due to its performance concern. Cassandra, by contrast, offers the availability and performance necessary for developing highly available applications. Furthermore, the Hadoop technology stack is typically deployed in a single location, while in the big international enterprise context, we demand the feasibility for deployment across countries and continents, hence finally we are favor of Cassandra
I have no experience with this but from the blogs and news what I believe is that in businesses where there is high demand for scalability, Cassandra is a good choice to go for.
Since it works on CQL, it is quite familiar with SQL in understanding therefore it does not prevent a new employee to start in learning and having the Cassandra experience at an industrial level.
