Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFAMeY+yFSfnbJucew6aVNwTuxx8n1d9nUSRe=KH67Vm7q7uRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOiJXP57ncT7mH35Yvz4VwmXxEU01YLpoh9d89w91L0_wfMyaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFAMeY+yFSfnbJucew6aVNwTuxx8n1d9nUSRe=KH67Vm7q7uRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:44:50 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAL5zq9bg_B9upGmpfSC225PSfYfrs-J3w9OUAHFiSGfqpLT0eg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Does Accumulo Have a Physical Table Limitation Like HBase?
From: Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

There's possibly more ZK usage with more tables, and more
user/security overhead with more tables, but I can't imagine that's a
limiting factor.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I think the limitation in Accumulo is on Tablets, not Tables (module
> cluster size, of course).
>
> I've never seen anything that would indicate number of tables on a system
> to be an issue.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:21 PM, David Medinets <david.medinets@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I have never used HBase and I've only used Accumulo with less than 100
>> tables. However, when I see a statement like the following about HBase,  I
>> feel compelled to ask how it compares to Accumulo. Does anyone know?
>>
>>   http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/views.html:
>>     This is especially important in HBase, as you cannot
>>     realistically expect to have more than perhaps up
>>     to a hundred physical tables and continue to get
>>     reasonable performance from HBase.
>>