Hadoop is an open source software from Apache, supporting distributed processing and data storage. Hadoop is popular for its scalability, reliability, and functionality available across commoditized hardware.
N/A
HBase
Score 7.3 out of 10
N/A
The Apache HBase project's goal is the hosting of very large tables -- billions of rows X millions of columns -- atop clusters of commodity hardware. Apache HBase is an open-source, distributed, versioned, non-relational database modeled after Google's Bigtable.
N/A
Apache Spark
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Apache Spark is a multi-language engine for executing data engineering, data science, and machine learning on single-node machines or clusters.
Apache Spark has an in memory processing model, making it powerful for lightning fast data processing. Apache Spark also exposes Scala and Python in APIs which is one of the most commonly used programming languages in data analytic and data processing domains.
Apache Spark can be considered as an alternative because of its similar capabilities around processing and storing big data. The reason we went with Hadoop was the literature available online and integration capability with platforms like R Studio. The popularity of Hadoop has …
Spark is a good alternative to Hadoop that can have faster querying and processing performance and can offer more flexibility in terms of applications that it can support.
Google BigQuery has also been a great alternative and is especially great in terms of ease of use. The …
Vice President, Chief Architect, Development Manager and Software Engineer
Chose Apache Hadoop
Hands down, Hadoop is less expensive than the other platforms we considered. Cloudera was easier to set up but the expense ruled it out. MS-SQL didn't have the performance we saw with the Hadoop clusters and was more expensive. We considered MS-SQL mainly for its ability …
Hadoop provides storage for large data sets and a powerful processing model to crunch and transform huge amounts of data. It does not assume the underlying hardware or infrastructure and enables the users to build data processing infrastructure from commodity hardware. All the …
HBase is more secure. Easily scalable. HBase is for wide-column store while MongoDB is for document store. Triggers available in HBase while in Mongodb triggers are not available.
Cassandra os great for writes. But with large datasets, depending, not as great as HBASE. Cassandra does support parquet now. HBase still performance issues. Cassandra has use cases of being used as time series. HBase, it fails miserably. GeoSpatial data, Hbase does work …
Compared NoSQL databases with traditional databases for faster retrieval and consistency. As MongoDB is a NoSQL supports dynamic fields, however, query performance is bad for aggregations and added maintenance. When compared with MySQL and Teradata, it could not scale up as …
HBase is what you should use if you want a production ready scalable, JSON friendly, key-value, NoSQL, enterprise storage option. It excels over MongoDB due to integration with the extensive Hadoop stack and all the tools, frameworks and benefits there.
Typically, Cassandra is faster on reads and HBase is faster on writes. You use Cassandra when you want to use a website, HBase is just an overall good general use database engine. Cassandra has its own storage engine and HBase uses HDFS and all its benefits. MongoDB is …
These days I use Apache Cassandra more for even more scalability, good performance under different kind of workloads, and for providing highly available systems. Apache Cassandra also has connectors for Hadoop, Spark, and Solr.
Apache Spark is a fast-processing in-memory computing framework. It is 10 times faster than Apache Hadoop. Earlier we were using Apache Hadoop for processing data on the disk but now we are shifted to Apache Spark because of its in-memory computation capability. Also in SAP …
1. Apache Spark is almost 100 % faster than Hadoop. 2. Apache Spark is more stable than Amazon EMR. 3. The end to end distributed machine library is more robust in Apache Spark.
Consultor Tecnico - Java Developer and Php Developer.
Chose Apache Spark
I prefer Apache Spark compared to Hadoop, since in my experience Spark has more usability and comes equipped with simple APIs for Scala, Python, Java and Spark SQL, as well as provides feedback in REPL format on the commands. At the same time, Apache Spark seems to have the …
All the above systems work quite well on big data transformations whereas Spark really shines with its bigger API support and its ability to read from and write to multiple data sources. Using Spark one can easily switch between declarative versus imperative versus functional …
vs MapRedce, it was faster and easier to manage. Especially for Machine Learning, where MapReduce is lacking. Also Apache Storm was slower and didn't scale as much as Spark does. Spark elasticity was easier to apply compared to storm and MapReduce. managing resources for …
Spark in comparison to similar technologies ends up being a one stop shop. You can achieve so much with this one framework instead of having to stitch and weave multiple technologies from the Hadoop stack, all while getting incredibility performance, minimal boilerplate, and …
Apache Pig and Apache Hive provide most of the things spark provide but apache spark has more features like actions and transformations which are easy to code. Spark uses optimization technique as we can select driver program and manipulate DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) Python …
Spark has primarily replaced my use of writing pure Hadoop MapReduce or Apache Pig jobs for processing data. I like the fact that I can alternate between the main programming languages that I know - Java and Python - and use those to learn the Scala API. Spark also can be …
Altogether, I want to say that Apache Hadoop is well-suited to a larger and unstructured data flow like an aggregation of web traffic or even advertising. I think Apache Hadoop is great when you literally have petabytes of data that need to be stored and processed on an ongoing basis. Also, I would recommend that the software should be supplemented with a faster and interactive database for a better querying service. Lastly, it's very cost-effective so it is good to give it a shot before coming to any conclusion.
Hbase is well suited for large organizations with millions of operations performing on tables, real-time lookup of records in a table, range queries, random reads and writes and online analytics operations. Hbase cannot be replaced for traditional databases as it cannot support all the features, CPU and memory intensive. Observed increased latency when using with MapReduce job joins.
Well suited: To most of the local run of datasets and non-prod systems - scalability is not a problem at all. Including data from multiple types of data sources is an added advantage. MLlib is a decently nice built-in library that can be used for most of the ML tasks. Less appropriate: We had to work on a RecSys where the music dataset that we used was around 300+Gb in size. We faced memory-based issues. Few times we also got memory errors. Also the MLlib library does not have support for advanced analytics and deep-learning frameworks support. Understanding the internals of the working of Apache Spark for beginners is highly not possible.
Stored procedures functionality is not available so it should be implemented.
HBase is CPU and Memory intensive with large sequential input or output access while as Map Reduce jobs are primarily input or output bound with fixed memory. HBase integrated with Map-reduce jobs will result in random latencies.
Hadoop is organization-independent and can be used for various purposes ranging from archiving to reporting and can make use of economic, commodity hardware. There is also a lot of saving in terms of licensing costs - since most of the Hadoop ecosystem is available as open-source and is free
There's really not anything else out there that I've seen comparable for my use cases. HBase has never proven me wrong. Some companies align their whole business on HBase and are moving all of their infrastructure from other database engines to HBase. It's also open source and has a very collaborative community.
As Hadoop enterprise licensed version is quite fine tuned and easy to use makes it good choice for Hadoop administrators. It’s scalability and integration with Kerberos is good option for authentication and authorisation. installation can be improved. logging can be improved so that it become easier for debugging purposes. parallel processing of data is achieved easily.
If the team looking to use Apache Spark is not used to debug and tweak settings for jobs to ensure maximum optimizations, it can be frustrating. However, the documentation and the support of the community on the internet can help resolve most issues. Moreover, it is highly configurable and it integrates with different tools (eg: it can be used by dbt core), which increase the scenarios where it can be used
It's a great value for what you pay, and most Data Base Administrators (DBAs) can walk in and use it without substantial training. I tend to dabble on the analyst side, so querying the data I need feels like it can take forever, especially on higher traffic days like Monday.
1. It integrates very well with scala or python. 2. It's very easy to understand SQL interoperability. 3. Apache is way faster than the other competitive technologies. 4. The support from the Apache community is very huge for Spark. 5. Execution times are faster as compared to others. 6. There are a large number of forums available for Apache Spark. 7. The code availability for Apache Spark is simpler and easy to gain access to. 8. Many organizations use Apache Spark, so many solutions are available for existing applications.
Not used any other product than Hadoop and I don't think our company will switch to any other product, as Hadoop is providing excellent results. Our company is growing rapidly, Hadoop helps to keep up our performance and meet customer expectations. We also use HDFS which provides very high bandwidth to support MapReduce workloads.
Cassandra os great for writes. But with large datasets, depending, not as great as HBASE. Cassandra does support parquet now. HBase still performance issues. Cassandra has use cases of being used as time series. HBase, it fails miserably. GeoSpatial data, Hbase does work to an extent. HA between the two are almost the same.
Spark in comparison to similar technologies ends up being a one stop shop. You can achieve so much with this one framework instead of having to stitch and weave multiple technologies from the Hadoop stack, all while getting incredibility performance, minimal boilerplate, and getting the ability to write your application in the language of your choosing.
There are many advantages of Hadoop as first it has made the management and processing of extremely colossal data very easy and has simplified the lives of so many people including me.
Hadoop is quite interesting due to its new and improved features plus innovative functions.
As Hbase is a noSql database, here we don't have transaction support and we cannot do many operations on the data.
Not having the feature of primary or a composite primary key is an issue as the architecture to be defined cannot be the same legacy type. Also the transaction concept is not applicable here.
The way data is printed on console is not so user-friendly. So we had to use some abstraction over HBase (eg apache phoenix) which means there is one new component to handle.