Hi,
Our SIGMOD paper about Pig
(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~olston/publications/sigmod08.pdf) compares Pig with
SQL, and to a first approximation Hive is like SQL.
Briefly: Pig lets users specify the order of operations directly ("plugging
together pipes" as bloggers who are fans of map-reduce are fond of saying),
as in map-reduce (but in Pig the pipes can be composed arbitrarily, and
inward/outward branching is explicitly modeled). In contrast, SQL decouples
the program specification from the order of operations, which gets
determined by an automatic "query optimizer." For a more detailed discussion
please see our paper referenced above.
-Chris
Naama Kraus wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There are various technologies on top of Hadoop such as HBase, Hive, Pig
> and
> more. I was wondering what are the differences between them. What are the
> usage scenarios that fit each one of them.
>
> For instance, is it true to say that Pig and Hive belong to the same
> family
> ? Or is Hive more close to HBase ?
> My understanding is that HBase allows direct lookup and low latency
> queries,
> while Pig and Hive provide batch processing operations which are M/R
> based.
> Both define a data model and an SQL-like query language. Is this true ?
>
> Could anyone shed light on when to use each technology ? Main differences
> ?
> Pros and Cons ?
> Information on other technologies such as Jaql is also welcome.
>
> Thanks, Naama
>
> --
> oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo
> 00 oo 00 oo
> "If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If
> you
> want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales." (Albert
> Einstein)
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/HBase%2C-Hive%2C-Pig-and-other-Hadoop-based-technologies-tp19287896p19316495.html
Sent from the Hadoop core-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
