I think the main gain is more about getting rid of a dedicated database including maintenance and potential license cost. For really large clusters and a lot of users this might be even more beneficial. You can avoid clustering the database etc.
> On 24 Oct 2016, at 00:46, Mich Talebzadeh <mich.talebza...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A while back there was some notes on having Hive metastore on Hbase as > opposed to conventional RDBMSs > > I am currently involved with some hefty work with Hbase and Phoenix for batch > ingestion of trade data. As long as you define your Hbase table through > Phoenix and with secondary Phoenix indexes on Hbase, the speed is impressive. > > I am not sure how much having Hbase as Hive metastore is going to add to Hive > performance. We use Oracle 12c as Hive metastore and the Hive database/schema > is built on solid state disks. Never had any issues with lock and concurrency. > > Therefore I am not sure what one is going to gain by having Hbase as the Hive > metastore? I trust that we can still use our existing schemas on Oracle. > > HTH > > > > Dr Mich Talebzadeh > > LinkedIn > https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=AAEAAAAWh2gBxianrbJd6zP6AcPCCdOABUrV8Pw > > http://talebzadehmich.wordpress.com > > Disclaimer: Use it at your own risk. Any and all responsibility for any loss, > damage or destruction of data or any other property which may arise from > relying on this email's technical content is explicitly disclaimed. The > author will in no case be liable for any monetary damages arising from such > loss, damage or destruction. >
