Apache CouchDB vs. Apache HBase

It's good as a general JSON document store and basic map/reduce system. For more specialized tasks like message queuing, graph traversal, streaming metrics aggregation, or arbitrary table joins, I'd recommend another database.

Incentivized

HBase is well suited for streaming ingest, fast lookups, massive datasets, data warehouse lookup tables, RDBMS replacement, MongoDB replacement, key-value store, data scans, logs, JSON storage and some binary storage. My preferred use case is for storing data points like time series or data produced by sensors. I often use HBase when I need data available immediately and I am not looking for transactions. This is a great store for really wide tables with tons of columns. It is also great if you are not sure what type of data you are going to have. It really excels at sparse data.

Incentivized

• Ease of install and setup.
• Ease of syncing with another database. This was truly set it and forget it.
• The REST API to read data. No additional drivers are needed to work with CouchDB.

Incentivized

• Scalable and truly non-relational data
• HBase operations run in real-time on its database rather than MapReduce jobs
• Scales linearly to support billions of rows with millions of columns

Incentivized

• SUPER SLOW. We do tons of data and S3 and just using the file system were both way faster
• Using views is too complex
• Stores entire DB as 1 file, good luck when it becomes many TB

Incentivized

• Write performance
• Performance support for parquet file format. supports, but performance wise still not there
• API / library availability for spark, rather than creating a new library for it

Incentivized

As a highly distributed database system, CouchDB naturally has strong high availability with traffic load-balancing capability. It is also easy to scale and replicate data in a cluster for redundancy. However, there is still some room for query performance improvement in the future.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

Couchdb is very simple to use and the features are also reduced but well implemented. In order to use it the way its designed, the ui is adequate and easy. Of course, there are some other task that can't be performed through the admin ui but the minimalistic design allows you to use external libraries to develop custom scripts

Incentivized

it support is minimal also hw requirements. Also for development, we can have databases replicated everywhere and the replication is automagical. once you set up the security and the rules for replication, you are ready to go. The absence of a model let you build your app the way you want it

Incentivized

Open Source, and freely able to install it on any OS you desire (the big 3, anyways) CouchDB was selected for that, it's early-adoption of JSON and its mobile-friendly environment. Also, I have used it off and on in various non-professional projects, and it was really one of the first exposure to databases in my career

Incentivized

Compared NoSQL databases with traditional databases for faster retrieval and consistency. As MongoDB is a NoSQL supports dynamic fields, however, query performance is bad for aggregations and added maintenance. When compared with MySQL and Teradata, it could not scale up as fast as Hbase and added cost involved to it. HBase can be easily scalable to a huge volume of records, have a faster lookup and provides consistency

Incentivized

• Biggest impact on our business has been that CouchDB has been pretty invisible from a cost or issues perspective. It just works.
• We use the Apache releases, so it's free. Of course there is a cost to "free" - we have invested time to become fluent in using and understanding CouchDB. But we feel the investment was well worth the effort and we have a solid, fundamental technology to our products that "just works".
• There are some things we do - SaaS vs self-hosting - that have probably been kept simple by using CouchDB. Overall, we are extremely happy with CouchDB.

Incentivized

• Positive: Open source, easy to use, good to store big data.
• Negative: SQL functionalities are not available.
• More memory utilization
• More troubleshooting

Incentivized