>So updating is okay but Handling deletes is not possible in the current version
> of the data unless a new version of the data is written down.
Not quite. You can delete a record and it will not show up in scans
and gets etc, but physically it will still take up space on the disk
until HBase cle
Hi All,
Thank you for the feedback. So to summarize, HBase is doing good for high
reads, writes. Update is really writing a new version of the data. So
updating is okay but Handling deletes is not possible in the current version
of the data unless a new version of the data is written down.
Also,
That is a static snapshot of a particular version of HBase with a
particular version of their code (each with various flaws, mistakes,
etc, etc).
At this moment, Stumbleupon uses HBase behind parts of it's website,
doing reads, writes, updates, and so on. Performance is quite good,
and we are ver
Hi,
I read the comparison from this pdf:
http://www.brianfrankcooper.net/pubs/ycsb-v4.pdf
hari
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> HBase is well-suited for a high-write workload.
>
> Hari, I'm not sure what would be different in a database like Cassandra
> with respec
HBase is well-suited for a high-write workload.
Hari, I'm not sure what would be different in a database like Cassandra with
respect to updates and deletes? In this regard HBase and Cassandra are nearly
identical (updates are really just insertions of new versions, deletions are
actually tombs
