No one has petabytes in HBase today. I would say the minimum scale that it makes sense is hundreds of gigabytes to terabytes. As is being said now, "medium" data not necessarily "big" data :)
The other reasons to use HBase would be for high availability, distribution, and for the very different data model. Column-orientation can be very useful for certain schemas. Also, the HBase architecture allows for very fast writes regardless of table size. In an RDBMS, writes generally go slower the bigger the table is. JG > -----Original Message----- > From: eltonsky [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: When should I jump on HBase rather than RDBMS? > > > Hello everyone, > > I read through some literature and end up with some ideas on HBase and > RDBMS. Please correct me if I am wrong: > > * Use HBase if the application is going to handle large datasets, like > Petabytes. That means when scalability is a big concern; Also, because > HDFS > replicates data autoamtically, we have reliability; > > * Correspondingly, we can just use RDBMS when the dataset is not huge > enough > to worry about scalability often. Because anyway, RDBMS has more > functionalities we can take advantage of, e.g. secondary indexing, > referential integrity. > > Is the above right? > > Regards, > Elton > > -- > View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/When-should-I-jump- > on-HBase-rather-than-RDBMS--tp27939881p27939881.html > Sent from the HBase User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
