From what I can make out NoSQL databases might be a good option for high intensity data read applications, but are a less good fit if you need to do also do a lot data updates and transactionality is very important to you (what with there being no ACID compliance). Right? Too simplistic maybe.
But anyway, supposing I'm partly right at least I'm now concerned about how NoSQL databases maintain a "read consistent" view of the data that you're either reading or writing. Or do they? And if they don't, isn't that a really big problem?
I mean, if the data that you're reading (or updating) is changing as you read it then you're potentially going to get an inconsistent/dirty result set. Coming from an Oracle rdbms background, where all this is just handled for you, I find it confusing how the lack of read consistency is anything but a big problem. Could well be though that I'm missing some key point about all this. Can someone set me straight?
I am a developer on the Oracle NoSQL Database and will answer your question relative to that particular NoSQL system.
The Oracle NoSQL Database API allows the programmer to specify -- with each API call -- the level of read consistency. The four possible values, ranging from strictest to loosest, are Absolute, Time, Version, and None. Absolute says to always read from the replication master so that the most current value is returned. "Time" says that the system can return a value from any replica that is at least within a certain time delta of the master (e.g. read the value from any replica that is within 2 seconds of the master). Every read and write call to the system returns a "version handle". This version handle may be passed into any read call when Consistency.Version is specified and it tells the system to read from any replica which is at least as up to date as that version. This is useful for Read Modify Write (aka CAS) scenarios. The last value, Consistency.None says that any replica can be used (i.e. there is no consistency guaranteed).
I hope this is helpful.
Charles Lamb
A NoSQL database can be read-consistent, although it's generally not a big problem if it's not strictly so, check out the CAP theorem. There's been quite a lot of research done in this area, I recommend reading Amazon's Dynamo paper for a quick view of some of the problems and solutions faced by distributed systems like NoSQL databases.
MongoDB allows the application to select the desired level of read consistency using "write concern". This concept allows your application to block until a certain condition is met for a given write.
By way of example, you can consider any write successful so long as the operation is communicated to a master server. Alternatively, you can block until a write has been propagated to a majority of nodes in your replica set. In this way, you can mix performance/consistency to taste.
It depends on the NoSQL database you are using as each implements a different strategy. You can read, for example, Riak's explanation of their "eventual consistency" model or Lars Hofhansel's writeup on ACID in HBase
Related
So, I am doing research on MongoDB, in line with upper management decision to embrace open source and to migrate existing product database from SQL Server to MongoDB and revamp the entire thing. Do note that our database should focus on data consistency and transactional guarantee.
And i discover this post: Click here. A summary of the post is as follow:
MongoDB claims to be strongly consistent, but a lot of evidence
recently has shown this not to be the case in certain scenarios (when
network partitioning occurs, which can happen under heavy load). This
means that you can potentially lose records that MongoDB has
acknowledged as "successfully written".
In terms of your application, if you have a need to have transactional
guarantees (meaning if you can't make a durable write, you need the
transaction to fail), you should avoid MongoDB. Example scenarios
where strong consistency and durability are essential include "making
a deposit into a bank account" or "creating a record of birth". To put
it another way, these are scenarios where you would get punched in the
face by your customer if you indicated an operation succeeded and it
didn't.
So, my question is as follow:
1) To what extend does "lost data" still valid in current version of MongoDB?
2) What approach can be take to ensure transactional guarantee in MongoDB?
I am pretty sure that if company like PayPal do use MongoDB, there is certainly a way of overcoming these issue.
The references in that post have been discussed here before (for example, here is one: MongoDB: Does Write Concern guarantee the write on primary plus atleast one secondary ). No need to duplicate your question.
The blog "Aphyr" mostly uses these articles to tout it's own tech (if you read the entire blog you will realise they have their own database which they market). Every database they show loses data except their own.
2) What approach can be take to ensure transactional guarantee in MongoDB?
I agree you should be handling database problems in client code, if not then how is your client side ever going to remain consistent in the event of partitions?
Since you are not Harry Potter (are you?) I will say that you need to check for exceptions thrown in your client code and react to them as needed.
1) To what extend does "lost data" still valid in current version of MongoDB?
As for the bug he mentions in 2.4.3: he fails (as I mention in the linked post) to state the bug reference so again, no comment still.
Besides 2 writes in 6,000? That's less data loss than I have seen in MySQL on a partition! So not too shabby.
I have not noticed such behaviour in my own app and, from small to extremely large sites, I have not noticed anyone reproduce benchmark type scenarios as displayed in that article, I doubt very much you will.
I am pretty sure that if company like PayPal do use MongoDB, there is certainly a way of overcoming these issue.
They would have tight coding to ensure consistency in distributed environments.
Of course, they would start by choosing the right tech for the situation...
Write Concern Reference
Write concern describes the level of acknowledgement requested from MongoDB for write operations to a standalone mongod or to replica sets or to sharded clusters. In sharded clusters, mongos instances will pass the write concern on to the shards.
https://docs.mongodb.org/v3.0/reference/write-concern/
I've very recently fallen in love with CouchDB. I'm pretty excited by its enormous benefits and by its beauty. Now I want to make sure that I haven't missed any show-stopping disadvantages.
What comes to your mind? Attached is a list of points that I have collected. Is there anything to add?
Blog posts from as late as 2010 claim "not mature enough" (whatever that's worth).
Slower than in-memory DBMS.
In-place updates require server-side logic (update handlers).
Trades disk vs. speed: Databases can become huge compared to other DBMS (compaction functionality exists, though).
"Only" eventual consistency.
Temporary views on large datasets are very slow.
Replication of large databases may fail.
Map/reduce paradigm requires rethinking (only for completeness).
The only point that worries me is #3 (in-place updates), because it's quite inconvenient.
The data is in JSON
Which means that documents are quite large (BigData, network bandwidth, speed), and having descriptive key names actually hurts, since they add up to the document size.
No built in full text search
Although there are ways: couchdb-lucene, elasticsearch
plus some more:
It doesn't support transactions
It means that enforcing uniqueness of one field across all documents is not safe, for example, enforcing that a username is unique. Another consequence of CouchDB's inability to support the typical notion of a transaction is that things like inc/decrementing a value and saving it back are also dangerous. There aren't many instances that we would want to simply inc/decrement some value where we couldn't just store the individual documents separately and aggregate them with a view.
Relational data
If the data makes a lot of sense to be in 3rd normal form, and we try to follow that form in CouchDB, we are going to run into a lot of trouble. A possible way to solve this problem is with view collations, but we might constantly going to be fighting with the system. If the data can be reformatted to be much more denormalized, then CouchDB will work fine.
Data warehouse
The problem with this is that temporary views in CouchDB on large datasets are really slow. Using CouchDB and permanent views could work quite well. However, in most of cases, a Column-Oriented Database of some sort is a much better tool for the data warehousing job.
But CouchDB Rocks!
But don't let it discorage you: NoSQL DBs that are written in Erlang (CouchDB, Riak) are the best, since Erlang is meant for distributed systems. Have fun with Couch!
2 more things, which make me cry when using CouchDB (though it's awesome):
It is not designed for frequently updated data
It doesn't have built-in fulltext search
Lack of reader ACLs (does exist for writers, however)
As an old Lotus Domino pro I was looking to CouchDB as an alternative for a new project I'm kicking off and found the limits on readers to be very weak in Couch vs. Domino. In my app security is an important consideration and Couch would require a middleware layer to handle reader security.
If you have database in which it's okay that all defined users can see all the documents, then Couch looks like an interesting platform.
If restricting reads is needed then you'll need to look to a middleware solution or consider another alternative.
Note to CouchDB developers: Improve the platform security options. I realize they will diminish performance when used but note that and make the option available.
Now back to determining which database to use...
currently no support for ad-hoc queries (might change with advent of UnQL)
lack of binary protocol support for faster communication
It's nothing to do with CouchDB itself, but being a relative newcomer on the scene means that most sysadmins are still unfamiliar with it and won't allow it anywhere near "their" data centers. If you're in a situation where you're deploying to an environment you don't control yourself, this can be quite the battle.
Lack of support for data archiving - No official support for data
archiving is provided with couch db open source distribution.
Deleting records from db is not straightforward
No option to set a expire (TTL) flag for documents
Quoting: http://gigaom.com/cloud/facebook-trapped-in-mysql-fate-worse-than-death/
There have been various attempts to
overcome SQL’s performance and
scalability problems, including the
buzzworthy NoSQL movement that burst
onto the scene a couple of years ago.
However, it was quickly discovered
that while NoSQL might be faster and
scale better, it did so at the expense
of ACID consistency.
Wait - am I reading that wrongly?
Does it mean that if I use NoSQL, we can expect transactions to be corrupted (albeit I daresay at a very low percentage)?
It's actually true and yet also a bit false. It's not about corruption it's about seeing something different during a (limited) period.
The real thing here is the CAP theorem which simply states you can only choose two of the following three:
Consistency (all nodes see the same data at the same time)
Availability (a guarantee that every request receives a response about whether it was successful or failed)
Partition
tolerance (the system continues to operate despite arbitrary message loss)
The traditional SQL systems choose to drop "Partition tolerance" where many (not all) of the NoSQL systems choose to drop "Consistency".
More precise: They drop "Strong Consistency" and select a more relaxed Consistency model like "Eventual Consistency".
So the data will be consistent when viewed from various perspectives, just not right away.
NoSQL solutions are usually designed to overcome SQL's scale limitations. Those scale limitations are explained by the CAP theorem. Understanding CAP is key to understanding why NoSQL systems tend to drop support for ACID.
So let me explain CAP in purely intuitive terms. First, what C, A and P mean:
Consistency: From the standpoint of an external observer, each "transaction" either fully completed or is fully rolled back. For example, when making an amazon purchase the purchase confirmation, order status update, inventory reduction etc should all appear 'in sync' regardless of the internal partitioning into sub-systems
Availability: 100% of requests are completed successfully.
Partition Tolerance: Any given request can be completed even if a subset of nodes in the system are unavailable.
What do these imply from a system design standpoint? what is the tension which CAP defines?
To achieve P, we needs replicas. Lots of em! The more replicas we keep, the better the chances are that any piece of data we need will be available even if some nodes are offline. For absolute "P" we should replicate every single data item to every node in the system. (Obviously in real life we compromise on 2, 3, etc)
To achieve A, we need no single point of failure. That means that "primary/secondary" or "master/slave" replication configurations go out the window since the master/primary is a single point of failure. We need to go with multiple master configurations. To achieve absolute "A", any single replica must be able to handle reads and writes independently of the other replicas. (in reality we compromise on async, queue based, quorums, etc)
To achieve C, we need a "single version of truth" in the system. Meaning that if I write to node A and then immediately read back from node B, node B should return the up-to-date value. Obviously this can't happen in a truly distributed multi-master system.
So, what is the "correct" solution to the problem? It details really depend on your requirements, but the general approach is to loosen up some of the constraints, and to compromise on the others.
For example, to achieve a "full write consistency" guarantee in a system with n replicas, the # of reads + the # of writes must be greater or equal to n : r + w >= n. This is easy to explain with an example: if I store each item on 3 replicas, then I have a few options to guarantee consistency:
A) I can write the item to all 3 replicas and then read from any one of the 3 and be confident I'm getting the latest version B) I can write item to one of the replicas, and then read all 3 replicas and choose the last of the 3 results C) I can write to 2 out of the 3 replicas, and read from 2 out of the 3 replicas, and I am guaranteed that I'll have the latest version on one of them.
Of course, the rule above assumes that no nodes have gone down in the meantime. To ensure P + C you will need to be even more paranoid...
There are also a near-infinite number of 'implementation' hacks - for example the storage layer might fail the call if it can't write to a minimal quorum, but might continue to propagate the updates to additional nodes even after returning success. Or, it might loosen the semantic guarantees and push the responsibility of merging versioning conflicts up to the business layer (this is what Amazon's Dynamo did).
Different subsets of data can have different guarantees (ie single point of failure might be OK for critical data, or it might be OK to block on your write request until the minimal # of write replicas have successfully written the new version)
The patterns for solving the 90% case already exist, but each NoSQL solution applies them in different configurations. The patterns are things like partitioning (stable/hash-based or variable/lookup-based), redundancy and replication, in memory-caches, distributed algorithms such as map/reduce.
When you drill down into those patterns, the underlying algorithms are also fairly universal: version vectors, merckle trees, DHTs, gossip protocols, etc.
It does not mean that transactions will be corrupted. In fact, many NoSQL systems do not use transactions at all! Some NoSQL systems may sometimes lose records (e.g. MongoDB when you do "fire and forget" inserts rather than "safe" ones), but often this is a design choice, not something you're stuck with.
If you need true transactional semantics (perhaps you are building a bank accounting application), use a database that supports them.
First, asking if NoSql is 100% ACID 100% of the time is a bit of a meaningless question. It's like asking "Are dogs 100% protective 100% of the time?" There are some dogs that are protective (or can be trained to be) such as German Shepherds or Doberman Pincers. There are other dogs that could care less about protecting anyone.
NoSql is the label of a movement, and not a specific technology. There are several different types of NoSql databases. There are document stores, such as MongoDb. There are graph databases such as Neo4j. There are key-value stores such as cassandra.
Each of these serve a different purpose. I've worked with a proprietary database that could be classified as a NoSql database, it's not 100% ACID, but it doesn't need to be. It's a write once, read many database. I think it gets built once a quarter (or once a month?) and then is read 1000s of time a day.
There is a lot of different NoSQL store types and implementations. Every of them can solve trade-offs between consistency and performance differently. The best you can get is a tunable framework.
Also the sentence "it was quickly discovered" from you citation is plainly stupid, this is no surprising discovery but a proven fact with deep theoretical roots.
In general, it's not that any given update would fail to save or get corrupted -- these are obviously going to be a very big issue for any database.
Where they fail on ACID is in data retrieval.
Consider a NoSQL DB which is replicated across numerous servers to allow high-speed access for a busy site.
And lets say the site owners update an article on the site with some new information.
In a typical NoSQL database in this scenario, the update would immediately only affect one of the nodes. Any queries made to the site on the other nodes would not reflect the change right away. In fact, as the data is replicated across the site, different users may be given different content despite querying at the same time. The data could take some time to propagate across all the nodes.
Conversely, in a transactional ACID compliant SQL database, the DB would have to be sure that all nodes had completed the update before any of them could be allowed to serve the new data.
This allows the site to retain high performance and page caching by sacrificing the guarantee that any given page will be absolutely up to date at an given moment.
In fact, if you consider it like this, the DNS system can be considered to be a specialised NoSQL database. If a domain name is updated in DNS, it can take several days for the new data to propagate throughout the internet (depending on TTL configuration).
All this makes NoSQL a useful tool for data such as web site content, where it doesn't necessarily matter that a page isn't instantly up-to-date and consistent as long as it is reasonably up-to-date.
On the other hand, though, it does mean that it would be a very bad idea to use a NoSQL database for a system which does require consistency and up-to-date accuracy. An order processing system or a banking system would definitely not be a good place for your typical NoSQL database engine.
NOSQL is not about corrupted data. It is about viewing at your data from a different perspective. It provides some interesting leverage points, which enable for much easier scalability story, and often usability too. However, you have to look at your data differently, and program your application accordingly (eg, embrace consequences of BASE instead of ACID). Most NOSQL solutions prevent you from making decisions which could make your database hard to scale.
NOSQL is not for everything, but ACID is not the most important factor from end-user perspective. It is just us developers who cannot imagine world without ACID guarantees.
You are reading that correctly. If you have the AP of CAP, your data will be inconsistent. The more users, the more inconsistent. As having many users is the main reason why you scale, don't expect the inconsistencies to be rare. You've already seen data pop in and out of Facebook. Imagine what that would do to Amazon.com stock inventory figures if you left out ACID. Eventual consistency is merely a nice way to say that you don't have consistency but you should write and application where you don't need it. Some types of games and social network application does not need consistency. There are even line-of-business systems that don't need it, but those are quite rare. When your client calls when the wrong amount of money is on an account or when an angry poker player didn't get his winnings, the answer should not be that this is how your software was designed.
The right tool for the right job. If you have less than a few million transactions per second, you should use a consistent NewSQL or NoSQL database such as VoltDb (non concurrent Java applications) or Starcounter (concurrent .NET applications). There is just no need to give up ACID these days.
I would like to test the NoSQL world. This is just curiosity, not an absolute need (yet).
I have read a few things about the differences between SQL and NoSQL databases. I'm convinced about the potential advantages, but I'm a little worried about cases where NoSQL is not applicable. If I understand NoSQL databases essentially miss ACID properties.
Can someone give an example of some real world operation (for example an e-commerce site, or a scientific application, or...) that an ACID relational database can handle but where a NoSQL database could fail miserably, either systematically with some kind of race condition or because of a power outage, etc ?
The perfect example will be something where there can't be any workaround without modifying the database engine. Examples where a NoSQL database just performs poorly will eventually be another question, but here I would like to see when theoretically we just can't use such technology.
Maybe finding such an example is database specific. If this is the case, let's take MongoDB to represent the NoSQL world.
Edit:
to clarify this question I don't want a debate about which kind of database is better for certain cases. I want to know if this technology can be an absolute dead-end in some cases because no matter how hard we try some kind of features that a SQL database provide cannot be implemented on top of nosql stores.
Since there are many nosql stores available I can accept to pick an existing nosql store as a support but what interest me most is the minimum subset of features a store should provide to be able to implement higher level features (like can transactions be implemented with a store that don't provide X...).
This question is a bit like asking what kind of program cannot be written in an imperative/functional language. Any Turing-complete language and express every program that can be solved by a Turing Maching. The question is do you as a programmer really want to write a accounting system for a fortune 500 company in non-portable machine instructions.
In the end, NoSQL can do anything SQL based engines can, the difference is you as a programmer may be responsible for logic in something Like Redis that MySQL gives you for free. SQL databases take a very conservative view of data integrity. The NoSQL movement relaxes those standards to gain better scalability, and to make tasks that are common to Web Applications easier.
MongoDB (my current preference) makes replication and sharding (horizontal scaling) easy, inserts very fast and drops the requirement for a strict scheme. In exchange users of MongoDB must code around slower queries when an index is not present, implement transactional logic in the app (perhaps with three phase commits), and we take a hit on storage efficiency.
CouchDB has similar trade-offs but also sacrifices ad-hoc queries for the ability to work with data off-line then sync with a server.
Redis and other key value stores require the programmer to write much of the index and join logic that is built in to SQL databases. In exchange an application can leverage domain knowledge about its data to make indexes and joins more efficient then the general solution the SQL would require. Redis also require all data to fit in RAM but in exchange gives performance on par with Memcache.
In the end you really can do everything MySQL or Postgres do with nothing more then the OS file system commands (after all that is how the people that wrote these database engines did it). It all comes down to what you want the data store to do for you and what you are willing to give up in return.
Good question. First a clarification. While the field of relational stores is held together by a rather solid foundation of principles, with each vendor choosing to add value in features or pricing, the non-relational (nosql) field is far more heterogeneous.
There are document stores (MongoDB, CouchDB) which are great for content management and similar situations where you have a flat set of variable attributes that you want to build around a topic. Take site-customization. Using a document store to manage custom attributes that define the way a user wants to see his/her page is well suited to the platform. Despite their marketing hype, these stores don't tend to scale into terabytes that well. It can be done, but it's not ideal. MongoDB has a lot of features found in relational databases, such as dynamic indexes (up to 40 per collection/table). CouchDB is built to be absolutely recoverable in the event of failure.
There are key/value stores (Cassandra, HBase...) that are great for highly-distributed storage. Cassandra for low-latency, HBase for higher-latency. The trick with these is that you have to define your query needs before you start putting data in. They're not efficient for dynamic queries against any attribute. For instance, if you are building a customer event logging service, you'd want to set your key on the customer's unique attribute. From there, you could push various log structures into your store and retrieve all logs by customer key on demand. It would be far more expensive, however, to try to go through the logs looking for log events where the type was "failure" unless you decided to make that your secondary key. One other thing: The last time I looked at Cassandra, you couldn't run regexp inside the M/R query. Means that, if you wanted to look for patterns in a field, you'd have to pull all instances of that field and then run it through a regexp to find the tuples you wanted.
Graph databases are very different from the two above. Relations between items(objects, tuples, elements) are fluid. They don't scale into terabytes, but that's not what they are designed for. They are great for asking questions like "hey, how many of my users lik the color green? Of those, how many live in California?" With a relational database, you would have a static structure. With a graph database (I'm oversimplifying, of course), you have attributes and objects. You connect them as makes sense, without schema enforcement.
I wouldn't put anything critical into a non-relational store. Commerce, for instance, where you want guarantees that a transaction is complete before delivering the product. You want guaranteed integrity (or at least the best chance of guaranteed integrity). If a user loses his/her site-customization settings, no big deal. If you lose a commerce transation, big deal. There may be some who disagree.
I also wouldn't put complex structures into any of the above non-relational stores. They don't do joins well at-scale. And, that's okay because it's not the way they're supposed to work. Where you might put an identity for address_type into a customer_address table in a relational system, you would want to embed the address_type information in a customer tuple stored in a document or key/value. Data efficiency is not the domain of the document or key/value store. The point is distribution and pure speed. The sacrifice is footprint.
There are other subtypes of the family of stores labeled as "nosql" that I haven't covered here. There are a ton (122 at last count) different projects focused on non-relational solutions to data problems of various types. Riak is yet another one that I keep hearing about and can't wait to try out.
And here's the trick. The big-dollar relational vendors have been watching and chances are, they're all building or planning to build their own non-relational solutions to tie in with their products. Over the next couple years, if not sooner, we'll see the movement mature, large companies buy up the best of breed and relational vendors start offering integrated solutions, for those that haven't already.
It's an extremely exciting time to work in the field of data management. You should try a few of these out. You can download Couch or Mongo and have them up and running in minutes. HBase is a bit harder.
In any case, I hope I've informed without confusing, that I have enlightened without significant bias or error.
RDBMSes are good at joins, NoSQL engines usually aren't.
NoSQL engines is good at distributed scalability, RDBMSes usually aren't.
RDBMSes are good at data validation coinstraints, NoSQL engines usually aren't.
NoSQL engines are good at flexible and schema-less approaches, RDBMSes usually aren't.
Both approaches can solve either set of problems; the difference is in efficiency.
Probably answer to your question is that mongodb can handle any task (and sql too). But in some cases better to choose mongodb, in others sql database. About advantages and disadvantages you can read here.
Also as #Dmitry said mongodb open door for easy horizontal and vertical scaling with replication & sharding.
RDBMS enforce strong consistency while most no-sql are eventual consistent. So at a given point in time when data is read from a no-sql DB it might not represent the most up-to-date copy of that data.
A common example is a bank transaction, when a user withdraw money, node A is updated with this event, if at the same time node B is queried for this user's balance, it can return an outdated balance. This can't happen in RDBMS as the consistency attribute guarantees that data is updated before it can be read.
RDBMs are really good for quickly aggregating sums, averages, etc. from tables. e.g. SELECT SUM(x) FROM y WHERE z. It's something that is surprisingly hard to do in most NoSQL databases, if you want an answer at once. Some NoSQL stores provide map/reduce as a way of solving the same thing, but it is not real time in the same way it is in the SQL world.
I just wanted to know if there is a fundamental difference between hbase, cassandra, couchdb and monogodb ? In other words, are they all competing in the exact same market and trying to solve the exact same problems. Or they fit best in different scenarios?
All this comes to the question, what should I chose when. Matter of taste?
Thanks,
Federico
Those are some long answers from #Bohzo. (but they are good links)
The truth is, they're "kind of" competing. But they definitely have different strengths and weaknesses and they definitely don't all solve the same problems.
For example Couch and Mongo both provide Map-Reduce engines as part of the main package. HBase is (basically) a layer over top of Hadoop, so you also get M-R via Hadoop. Cassandra is highly focused on being a Key-Value store and has plug-ins to "layer" Hadoop over top (so you can map-reduce).
Some of the DBs provide MVCC (Multi-version concurrency control). Mongo does not.
All of these DBs are intended to scale horizontally, but they do it in different ways. All of these DBs are also trying to provide flexibility in different ways. Flexible document sizes or REST APIs or high redundancy or ease of use, they're all making different trade-offs.
So to your question: In other words, are they all competing in the exact same market and trying to solve the exact same problems?
Yes: they're all trying to solve the issue of database-scalability and performance.
No: they're definitely making different sets of trade-offs.
What should you start with?
Man, that's a tough question. I work for a large company pushing tons of data and we've been through a few years. We tried Cassandra at one point a couple of years ago and it couldn't handle the load. We're using Hadoop everywhere, but it definitely has a steep learning curve and it hasn't worked out in some of our environments. More recently we've tried to do Cassandra + Hadoop, but it turned out to be a lot of configuration work.
Personally, my department is moving several things to MongoDB. Our reasons for this are honestly just simplicity.
Setting up Mongo on a linux box takes minutes and doesn't require root access or a change to the file system or anything fancy. There are no crazy config files or java recompiles required. So from that perspective, Mongo has been the easiest "gateway drug" for getting people on to KV/Document stores.
CouchDB and MongoDB are document stores
Cassandra and HBase are key-value based
Here is a detailed comparison between HBase and Cassandra
Here is a (biased) comparison between MongoDB and CouchDB
Short answer: test before you use in production.
I can offer my experience with both HBase (extensive) and MongoDB (just starting).
Even though they are not the same kind of stores, they solve the same problems:
scalable storage of data
random access to the data
low latency access
We were very enthusiastic about HBase at first. It is built on Hadoop (which is rock-solid), it is under Apache, it is active... what more could you want? Our experience:
HBase is fragile
administrator's nightmare (full of configuration settings where default ones are less than perfect, nontransparent configuration, changes from version to version,...)
loses data (unless you have set the X configuration and changed Y to... you get the point :) - we found that out when HBase crashed and we lost 2 hours (!!!) of data because WAL was not setup properly
lacks secondary indexes
lacks any way to perform a backup of database without shutting it down
All in all, HBase was a nightmare. Wouldn't recommend it to anyone except to our direct competitors. :)
MongoDB solves all these problems and many more. It is a delight to setup, it makes administrating it a simple and transparent job and the default configuration settings actually make sense. You can perform (hot) backups, you can have secondary indexes. From what I read, I wouldn't recommend MapReduce on MongoDB (JavaScript, 1 thread per node only), but you can use Hadoop for that.
And it is also VERY active when compared to HBase.
Also:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=HBase%2CMongoDB
Need I say more? :)
UPDATE: many months later I must say MongoDB delivered on all accounts and more. The only real downside is that hosting companies do not offer it the way they offer MySQL. ;)
It also looks like MapReduce is bound to become multi-threaded in 2.2. Still, I wouldn't use MR this way. YMMV.
Cassandra is good for writing the data. it has advantage of "writes never fail". It has no single point failure.
HBase is very good for data processing. HBase is based on Hadoop File System (HDFS) so HBase dosen't need to worry for data replication, data consistency. HBase has the single point of failure. I am not really sure that what does it's mean if it has single point of failure then it is somhow similar to RDBMS where we have single point of failure. I might be wrong in sense since I am quite new.
How abou RIAK ? Does someone has experience using RIAK. I red some where that you need to pay, I am not sure. Need explanation.
One more thing which one you will prefer to use when you are only concern to reading a lot of data. You don't have any concern with writing. Just imagine you have database with pitabyte and you want to make fast search which NOSQL database would you prefer ?