>From past one month I have been evaluating Hypertable and HBase. I would like to share my findings. Though I am not including much details here here but I will soon share it with the community.
I found following shortcomings in HBase 1. Slower or equal in performance when compared with Hypertable. All my tests were ran over a DB schema where I interact with multiple tables with multiple column families and with multiple columns. 2. HBase Shell syntax is really difficult to adapt for someone coming from SQL background. Unfortunately most of the users will come from SQL background. Here I recall the success story of firefox Mozilla. They became a success because they have not changed the menu options in the browser and kept it as close to IE because they knew from where they were going to get their users. Best things about HBase 1. Stable, I never got a crash when performing any operation even under very High load tests whereas Hypertable is unstable. Even their new releases are not up to the mark. I can understand that both communities are open source and evolving so such things can happen. 2. Much easier and better documented API's. 3. UI interface to see logs and many other important information. 4. Support for Gangila which makes life easy for people like us who needs to monitor DB and Machine performances. I would like to go for HBase because of its stability but since Hypertable has shown better performance our client prefers it. I do not have anything against Hypertable. But I think HBase will def. catch up with performance issues sooner than later. Would you also like to share any other comparison points which can help me put my case strongly in support of HBase ? Thanks, Gagan
