Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Amazon DynamoDB vs Cassandra vs HBase: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this article, we will compare the key differences between Amazon DynamoDB, Cassandra, and HBase, three popular NoSQL databases. Each of these databases has its own strengths and use cases, and understanding their differences can help in making the right choice for specific requirements.
- Data Model:
Amazon DynamoDB is a document-oriented database wherein each item can have its own unique set of attributes. It provides flexibility in schema design and allows for easy scaling.
Cassandra follows a column-oriented data model, with each row organized into a collection of columns. It offers flexible schema design and high write throughput, making it suitable for write-intensive applications.
HBase is a columnar database that also follows the column-oriented data model. It is designed to handle large amounts of structured and semi-structured data efficiently, providing low latency reads.
- Scalability:
DynamoDB provides automatic scaling both in terms of read and write operations. It adjusts the capacity to handle the varying load automatically, making it highly scalable.
Cassandra also offers seamless scalability by distributing data across several nodes. It utilizes a master-less architecture, allowing for linear scalability as the number of nodes increases.
HBase is horizontally scalable and can handle large amounts of data. It can be scaled by adding more nodes to the cluster, ensuring high availability and fault tolerance.
- Consistency Model:
DynamoDB offers eventual consistency by default but allows developers to choose strong consistency when required for specific read operations.
Cassandra provides tunable consistency, allowing developers to choose the level of consistency they need for each read and write operation. It offers eventual consistency and strong consistency options.
HBase supports strong consistency with immediate visibility for both reads and writes. It ensures data consistency by default, making it suitable for applications that require strong consistency guarantees.
- Data Replication:
DynamoDB automatically replicates data across multiple availability zones for high availability and durability. It is designed for multi-region replication and provides automatic failover.
Cassandra allows for data replication across multiple nodes, enabling fault tolerance and availability. It supports various replication strategies, including datacenter-aware and rack-aware replication.
HBase replicates data across multiple region servers to ensure high availability and fault tolerance. It provides synchronous replication with strong consistency guarantees.
- Query Language:
DynamoDB uses a proprietary query language called Amazon DynamoDB Query Language (DQL). It provides a flexible and expressive syntax for querying data, including support for filtering, sorting, and pagination.
Cassandra uses Cassandra Query Language (CQL), which is similar to SQL, to interact with the database. CQL allows developers to perform complex queries and supports features like filtering, ordering, and aggregations.
HBase does not have a specific query language and primarily relies on scanning the entire dataset or using index tables for retrieving data.
- Use Cases:
DynamoDB is well-suited for use cases that require low-latency access, high scalability, and flexible schema design, such as real-time applications, gaming, and mobile apps.
Cassandra is suitable for write-intensive applications that require high availability, fault tolerance, and fast writes, such as messaging platforms, IoT data ingestion, and time-series data.
HBase is often used in applications that require random, real-time read/write access to large amounts of structured and semi-structured data, such as social media analytics, fraud detection, and log processing.
In Summary, Amazon DynamoDB, Cassandra, and HBase differ in their data models, scalability options, consistency models, data replication strategies, query languages, and use cases. Understanding these differences is crucial in choosing the right NoSQL database for specific requirements.
The problem I have is - we need to process & change(update/insert) 55M Data every 2 min and this updated data to be available for Rest API for Filtering / Selection. Response time for Rest API should be less than 1 sec.
The most important factors for me are processing and storing time of 2 min. There need to be 2 views of Data One is for Selection & 2. Changed data.
Scylla can handle 1M/s events with a simple data model quite easily. The api to query is CQL, we have REST api but that's for control/monitoring
Cassandra is quite capable of the task, in a highly available way, given appropriate scaling of the system. Remember that updates are only inserts, and that efficient retrieval is only by key (which can be a complex key). Talking of keys, make sure that the keys are well distributed.
i love syclla for pet projects however it's license which is based on server model is an issue. thus i recommend cassandra
By 55M do you mean 55 million entity changes per 2 minutes? It is relatively high, means almost 460k per second. If I had to choose between Scylla or Cassandra, I would opt for Scylla as it is promising better performance for simple operations. However, maybe it would be worth to consider yet another alternative technology. Take into consideration required consistency, reliability and high availability and you may realize that there are more suitable once. Rest API should not be the main driver, because you can always develop the API yourself, if not supported by given technology.
6 months ago we finished migrating the Workjam channels module datastore. Reasons for the switch was frustrations with AWS read/write capacities being frequently exceeded because of unplanned explosive growth, hard limitations on batch updates and interesting Cassandra features such as consistency tuning and Datastax's Solr integration. The decision to use Cassandra might not have been the most practical one as our needs would probably have been better served by a document store such as MongoDB, as we are not dealing with intense document update operations, but Cassandra was used throughout the company and the aim of stack uniformity was favoured over functional needs. We implemented the migration with the aim of incurring no downtime and the ability to rollback by sending write commands over AMQP. Overall the migration went smoothly, the devs learned all the powers of Cassandra and got acquainted with its many constraints. Datastax's Solr integration made the search implementation very simple but we were very disappointed in some of Datastax's Solr integration limitations (ex: search highlights being deprecated).
Pros of Amazon DynamoDB
- Predictable performance and cost62
- Scalable56
- Native JSON Support35
- AWS Free Tier21
- Fast7
- No sql3
- To store data3
- Serverless2
- No Stored procedures is GOOD2
- ORM with DynamoDBMapper1
- Elastic Scalability using on-demand mode1
- Elastic Scalability using autoscaling1
- DynamoDB Stream1
Pros of Cassandra
- Distributed119
- High performance98
- High availability81
- Easy scalability74
- Replication53
- Reliable26
- Multi datacenter deployments26
- Schema optional10
- OLTP9
- Open source8
- Workload separation (via MDC)2
- Fast1
Pros of HBase
- Performance9
- OLTP5
- Fast Point Queries1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Amazon DynamoDB
- Only sequential access for paginate data4
- Scaling1
- Document Limit Size1
Cons of Cassandra
- Reliability of replication3
- Size1
- Updates1