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.
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.
Oracle NoSQL Database is well-suited for you if your data formats are not consistent, if you have limited hardware resources, if you higher data throughput (whether the database is on the cloud or running locally), and if you don't need a declarative query language to maintain a standardized schema of your data. If you need reduced data redundancy and require ACID compliance, you are better off finding an SQL database solution.
Data-model flexibility. Unlike RDBMS solutions, Oracle NoSQL does not restrict you to a predefined set of data types.
Ability to Handle an Increased Amount of Traffic. As Oracle NoSQL can process queries much quicker than Oracle Database, Oracle NoSQL is able to respond to a lot more queries in the same amount of time.
Data-model simplicity. In SQL-oriented databases, there is a learning curve in learning the relationship between databases, tables, rows, and keys. On the other hand, Oracle NoSQL's key-value based storage is much easier to get the hang of.
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.
Fewer analytical functions to choose from. When compared to Oracle Database, there is significant difference in the amount of built-in analytical functions.
Eventual data consistency. It is not guaranteed that a write or delete query will be immediately visible for subsequent queries.
Data redundancy. As there are no mechanisms that insure data integrity, users are more likely to have redundant data across their documents.
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.
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.
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.
We pay less for computing resources, as Oracle NoSQL databases respond quicker than our previous SQL databases.
Our database administrators and software developers do not need to worry about "data massaging" and can focus on perfecting application logic.
Oracle NoSQL has built-in integration to other Oracle products, so we didn't not need to spend money on building custom integrators or higher additional developers.
