Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Couchbase vs HBase: What are the differences?
Introduction
Couchbase and HBase are both popular NoSQL databases used for managing large amounts of data. However, they have several key differences in terms of data model, scalability, data consistency, query language, indexing, and performance.
Data Model: Couchbase is a document-oriented database, which means it stores data in JSON-like documents. On the other hand, HBase is a column-oriented database that stores data in tables with rows and columns.
Scalability: Couchbase offers seamless scalability with built-in support for sharding and replication. It allows horizontal scaling by distributing data across multiple nodes. In contrast, HBase uses Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) and Hadoop's MapReduce for horizontal scalability.
Data Consistency: Couchbase provides eventual consistency by default, which means that the data may take some time to propagate across all nodes. However, it also offers strong consistency as an option. HBase, on the other hand, provides strong consistency by default.
Query Language: Couchbase uses the N1QL query language, which is SQL-like and allows querying data using both structured and unstructured queries. HBase uses HBase shell and Java API for querying data, which requires more technical expertise.
Indexing: Couchbase supports secondary indexes, allowing efficient querying on non-primary key attributes. It also supports various types of indexes like GSI, spatial, and full-text search. HBase uses sparse indexes based on row keys, which limits the types of queries that can be performed.
Performance: Couchbase is known for its high performance and low latency due to its scalable architecture and in-memory caching. It provides automatic data caching and efficient data replication. HBase also offers good performance but may require additional configuration and tuning for optimal results.
In summary, Couchbase and HBase differ in terms of their data model, scalability, data consistency, query language, indexing, and performance.
I am researching different querying solutions to handle ~1 trillion records of data (in the realm of a petabyte). The data is mostly textual. I have identified a few options: Milvus, HBase, RocksDB, and Elasticsearch. I was wondering if there is a good way to compare the performance of these options (or if anyone has already done something like this). I want to be able to compare the speed of ingesting and querying textual data from these tools. Does anyone have information on this or know where I can find some? Thanks in advance!
You've probably come to a decision already but for those reading...here are some resources we put together to help people learn more about Milvus and other databases https://zilliz.com/comparison and https://github.com/zilliztech/VectorDBBench. I don't think they include RocksDB or HBase yet (you could could recommend on GitHub) but hopefully they help answer your Elastic Search questions.
Hey, we want to build a referral campaign mechanism that will probably contain millions of records within the next few years. We want fast read access based on IDs or some indexes, and isolation is crucial as some listeners will try to update the same document at the same time. What's your suggestion between Couchbase and MongoDB? Thanks!
I am biased (work for Scylla) but it sounds like a KV/wide column would be better in this use case. Document/schema free/lite DBs data stores are easier to get up and running on but are not as scalable (generally) as NoSQL flavors that require a more rigid data model like ScyllaDB. If your data volumes are going to be 10s of TB and transactions per sec 10s of 1000s (or more), look at Scylla. We have something called lightweight transactions (LWT) that can get you consistency.
I have found MongoDB highly consistent and highly available. It suits your needs. We usually trade off partion tolerance fot this. Having said that, I am little biased in recommendation as I haven't had much experience with couchbase on production.
We Have thousands of .pdf docs generated from the same form but with lots of variability. We need to extract data from open text and more important - from tables inside the docs. The output of Couchbase/Mongo will be one row per document for backend processing. ADOBE renders the tables in an unusable form.
I prefer MongoDB due to own experience with migration of old archive of pdf and meta-data to a new “archive”. The biggest advantage is speed of filters output - a new archive is way faster and reliable then the old one - but also the the easy programming of MongoDB with many code snippets and examples available. I have no personal experience so far with Couchbase. From the architecture point of view both options are OK - go for the one you like.
I would like to suggest MongoDB or ArangoDB (can't choose both, so ArangoDB). MongoDB is more mature, but ArangoDB is more interesting if you will need to bring graph database ideas to solution. For example if some data or some documents are interlinked, then probably ArangoDB is a best solution.
To process tables we used Abbyy software stack. It's great on table extraction.
If you can select text with mouse drag in PDF. Use pdftotext it is fast! You can install it on server with command "apt-get install poppler-utils". Use it like "pdftotext -layout /path-to-your-file". In same folder it will make text file with line by line content. There is few classes on git stacks that you can use, also.
After using couchbase for over 4 years, we migrated to MongoDB and that was the best decision ever! I'm very disappointed with Couchbase's technical performance. Even though we received enterprise support and were a listed Couchbase Partner, the experience was horrible. With every contact, the sales team was trying to get me on a $7k+ license for access to features all other open source NoSQL databases get for free.
Here's why you should not use Couchbase
Full-text search Queries The full-text search often returns a different number of results if you run the same query multiple types
N1QL queries Configuring the indexes correctly is next to impossible. It's poorly documented and nobody seems to know what to do, even the Couchbase support engineers have no clue what they are doing.
Community support I posted several problems on the forum and I never once received a useful answer
Enterprise support It's very expensive. $7k+. The team constantly tried to get me to buy even though the community edition wasn't working great
Autonomous Operator It's actually just a poorly configured Kubernetes role that no matter what I did, I couldn't get it to work. The support team was useless. Same lack of documentation. If you do get it to work, you need 6 servers at least to meet their minimum requirements.
Couchbase cloud Typical for Couchbase, the user experience is awful and I could never get it to work.
Minimum requirements
The minimum requirements in production are 6 servers. On AWS the calculated monthly cost would be ~$600
. We achieved better performance using a $16
MongoDB instance on the Mongo Atlas Cloud
writing queries is a nightmare While N1QL is similar to SQL and it's easier to write because of the familiarity, that isn't entirely true. The "smart index" that Couchbase advertises is not smart at all. Creating an index with 5 fields, and only using 4 of them won't result in Couchbase using the same index, so you have to create a new one.
Couchbase UI
The UI that comes with every database deployment is full of bugs, barely functional and the developer experience is poor. When I asked Couchbase about it, they basically said they don't care because real developers use SQL directly from code
Consumes too much RAM
Couchbase is shipped with a smaller Memcached instance to handle the in-memory cache. Memcached ends up using 8 GB of RAM for 5000 documents
! I'm not kidding! We had less than 5000 docs on a Couchbase instance and less than 20 indexes and RAM consumption was always over 8 GB
Memory allocations are useless I asked the Couchbase team a question: If a bucket has 1 GB allocated, what happens when I have more than 1GB stored? Does it overflow? Does it cache somewhere? Do I get an error? I always received the same answer: If you buy the Couchbase enterprise then we can guide you.
We implemented our first large scale EPR application from naologic.com using CouchDB .
Very fast, replication works great, doesn't consume much RAM, queries are blazing fast but we found a problem: the queries were very hard to write, it took a long time to figure out the API, we had to go and write our own @nodejs library to make it work properly.
It lost most of its support. Since then, we migrated to Couchbase and the learning curve was steep but all worth it. Memcached indexing out of the box, full text search works great.
Pros of Couchbase
- High performance18
- Flexible data model, easy scalability, extremely fast18
- Mobile app support9
- You can query it with Ansi-92 SQL7
- All nodes can be read/write6
- Equal nodes in cluster, allowing fast, flexible changes5
- Both a key-value store and document (JSON) db5
- Open source, community and enterprise editions5
- Automatic configuration of sharding4
- Local cache capability4
- Easy setup3
- Linearly scalable, useful to large number of tps3
- Easy cluster administration3
- Cross data center replication3
- SDKs in popular programming languages3
- Elasticsearch connector3
- Web based management, query and monitoring panel3
- Map reduce views2
- DBaaS available2
- NoSQL2
- Buckets, Scopes, Collections & Documents1
- FTS + SQL together1
Pros of HBase
- Performance9
- OLTP5
- Fast Point Queries1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Couchbase
- Terrible query language3