Amazon DynamoDB is a cloud-native, NoSQL, serverless database service.
$0
capacity unit per hour
HBase
Score 7.3 out of 10
N/A
The Apache HBase project's goal is the hosting of very large tables -- billions of rows X millions of columns -- atop clusters of commodity hardware. Apache HBase is an open-source, distributed, versioned, non-relational database modeled after Google's Bigtable.
N/A
Pricing
Amazon DynamoDB
Apache HBase
Editions & Modules
Provisioned - Read Operation
$0.00013
capacity unit per hour
Provisioned - Write Operation
$0.00065
capacity unit per hour
Provisioned - Global Tables
$0.000975
per Read Capacity
On-Demand Streams
$0.02
per 100,000 read operations
Provisioned - Streams
$0.02
per 100,000 read operations
On-Demand Data Requests Outside AWS Regions
$0.09
per GB
Provisioned - Data Requests Outside AWS Regions
$0.09
per GB
On-Demand Snapshot
$0.10
per GB per month
Provisioned - Snapshot
$0.10
per GB per month
On-Demand Restoring a Backup
$0.15
per GB
Provisioned - Restoring a Backup
$0.15
per GB
On-Demand Point-in-Time Recovery
$0.20
per GB per month
Provisioned - Point-in-Time Recovery
$0.20
per GB per month
On-Demand Read Operation
$0.25
per million requests
On-Demand Data Stored
$0.25
per GB per month
Provisioned - Data Stored
$0.25
per GB per month
On-Demand - Write Operation
$1.25
per million requests
On-Demand Global Tables
$1.875
per million write operations replicated
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon DynamoDB
HBase
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon DynamoDB
Apache HBase
Considered Both Products
Amazon DynamoDB
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
For our use case, we needed a noSQL that would work with AWS Lambdas of specific parts of the internal web applications. We optimized billing and uses , diversified databases for various parts; so it’s not very expensive.
Other all SQL Databases are based on the traditional Schema Structure and Amazon DynamoDB is NoSQL so you don't need to generate the SQL Schemas. You can store the data whatever you want, whenever you want. You can store data in structured or non-structured any way you want. If …
Performance at high scales is better and the cost at high scales is less. If one has a ton of data generated and has to work their way through it, I think Amazon DynamoDB should the go-to database. There are no compromises when it comes to performance at a huge scale. With any …
MongoDB was basically the first approach we used but because there was concern that some data may miss we were reluctant to use it. Oracle Database and SQL Server was our second approach but it was throttling so in last we tested out Amazon DynamoDB and it met our requirement.
The Amazon Web Services managed Amazon DynamoDB has excellent features which makes it stand out from all the others in market right now. The management ease it offers is far superior than its competitors and on top of that the on-demand pricing model is an advantage which works …
MongoDB has some performance issues and can get corrupted from time to time and has needed to be rebuilt. We have not had that experience while using DynamoDB.
Amazon DynamoDB supports larger throughput, with better SLA, also, we are considering unstructured data, so Amazon DynamoDB has become the final decision
The only thing that can be compared to DynamoDB from the selected services can be Aurora. It is just that we use Aurora for High-Performance requirements as it can be 6 times faster than normal RDS DB. Both of them have served as well in the required scenario and we are very …
DynamoDB offers strong consistency, more fine-grained control over read and write capacities, and integrates seamlessly with other AWS services. DynamoDB is designed for horizontal scalability and high throughput, making it a better choice for applications with rapidly changing …
AWS handles hardware provisioning, data recovery, fault tolerance, patching, and database upgrades for DynamoDB since it is a fully managed database service. Businesses can then concentrate on other aspects of their operations, including product development or customer service, …
The automation is much more subtle and it performs way better for internet-scale applications. No matter the number of connections, the performance doesn't dip even a bit.
DynamoDB's scalability is more automated and effortless, making it easier to handle rapid growth. Other tools require more manual configuration while DynamoDB simplifies database administration. Also, DynamoDB provides strong consistency while other tools like MongoDB and …
We are always assembling our solutions on AWS and DynamoDB is a better fit for us because of its simplicity. DynamoDB has its ow sets of triggers that make this an integrated solution on AWS. Besides, we wanted to use a key-value solution for our simple edge DB, and we didn't …
DynamoDB is slightly different than both the above-stated DBs, with RDS being a relational database and Redshift being a data warehouse used for heavier jobs and analytics and vast data. DynamoDB lies in between both, with it being a no SQL base that can relatively store …
Lesser flexibility but better performance, and more predictable development support are the key points where Amazon DynamoDB comes out on top, when compared to MongoDB.
Mongo services are outside of our Vpc and are on a different network. Since most of our infra is on AWS, dynamo by AWS was a natural choice. Most of our engineers are familiar with AWS sdk and the console so that brought in a much smaller learning curve for our engineering team
HBase is more secure. Easily scalable. HBase is for wide-column store while MongoDB is for document store. Triggers available in HBase while in Mongodb triggers are not available.
Cassandra os great for writes. But with large datasets, depending, not as great as HBASE. Cassandra does support parquet now. HBase still performance issues. Cassandra has use cases of being used as time series. HBase, it fails miserably. GeoSpatial data, Hbase does work …
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 …
HBase is what you should use if you want a production ready scalable, JSON friendly, key-value, NoSQL, enterprise storage option. It excels over MongoDB due to integration with the extensive Hadoop stack and all the tools, frameworks and benefits there.
Typically, Cassandra is faster on reads and HBase is faster on writes. You use Cassandra when you want to use a website, HBase is just an overall good general use database engine. Cassandra has its own storage engine and HBase uses HDFS and all its benefits. MongoDB is …
These days I use Apache Cassandra more for even more scalability, good performance under different kind of workloads, and for providing highly available systems. Apache Cassandra also has connectors for Hadoop, Spark, and Solr.
It is useful use-case by use-case. For our use case, it was the best and easiest option for the integration as well as development side. It is serverless so no need of deployment and maintenance hustle. It is easy to scale up due to the same functionality. Supports AWS Security features and just a click away for enabling it so security is good.
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.
It's core to our business, we couldn't survive without it. We use it to drive everything from FTP logins to processing stories and delivering them to clients. It's reliable and easy to query from all of our pipeline services. Integration with things like AWS Lambda makes it easy to trigger events and run code whenever something changes in the database.
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.
Functionally, DynamoDB has the features needed to use it. The interface is not as easy to use, which impacts its usability. Being familiar with AWS in general is helpful in understanding the interface, however it would be better if the interface more closely aligned with traditional tools for managing datastores.
While the actual performance of DynamoDB can vary based on workload and region, it is generally highly responsive and well-regarded for delivering low-latency access to data, making it a strong choice for applications with stringent performance requirements. Organizations often choose DynamoDB for its ability to provide a reliable and performant database service, particularly when combined with effective application design and optimization.
For our use case, we needed a noSQL that would work with AWS Lambdas of specific parts of the internal web applications. We optimized billing and uses , diversified databases for various parts; so it’s not very expensive.
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
I have taken one point away due to its size limits. In case the application requires queries, it becomes really complicated to read and write data. When it comes to extremely large data sets such as the case in my company, a third-party logistics company, where huge amount of data is generated on a daily basis, even though the scalability is good, it becomes difficult to manage all the data due to limits.
Businesses may only pay for the services they actually use thanks to DynamoDB's usage-based pricing approach.
AWS handles hardware provisioning, data recovery, fault tolerance, patching, and database upgrades for DynamoDB since it is a fully managed database service.
DynamoDB differs from conventional relational databases in terms of its data model, which might be difficult for developers accustomed to dealing with SQL-based systems.