Apache HBase vs. Memcached

HBase is well suited for streaming ingest, fast lookups, massive datasets, data warehouse lookup tables, RDBMS replacement, MongoDB replacement, key-value store, data scans, logs, JSON storage and some binary storage. My preferred use case is for storing data points like time series or data produced by sensors. I often use HBase when I need data available immediately and I am not looking for transactions. This is a great store for really wide tables with tons of columns. It is also great if you are not sure what type of data you are going to have. It really excels at sparse data.

Incentivized

• Scalable and truly non-relational data
• HBase operations run in real-time on its database rather than MapReduce jobs
• Scales linearly to support billions of rows with millions of columns

Incentivized

• Write performance
• Performance support for parquet file format. supports, but performance wise still not there
• API / library availability for spark, rather than creating a new library for it

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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 fast as Hbase and added cost involved to it. HBase can be easily scalable to a huge volume of records, have a faster lookup and provides consistency

Incentivized

• Positive: Open source, easy to use, good to store big data.
• Negative: SQL functionalities are not available.
• More memory utilization
• More troubleshooting

Incentivized