Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C7780973A for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:34:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 54727 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2012 01:34:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 54641 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2012 01:34:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 54631 invoked by uid 99); 22 Feb 2012 01:34:21 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:34:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.169] (HELO mail-tul01m020-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:34:13 +0000 Received: by obbta7 with SMTP id ta7so12691359obb.14 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:33:52 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com designates 10.60.28.10 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.60.28.10; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com designates 10.60.28.10 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=saint.ack@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=saint.ack@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.60.28.10]) by 10.60.28.10 with SMTP id x10mr13470582oeg.71.1329874432671 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:33:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=sL4WuT2ly19r3ONQcknjWnYnNwUkwuik0Wavy7vC6Xk=; b=Z1J5oIgvmsfvdugAOWYV7B0+G+4kzi2tNuG2eqwat9Vlz9xtW4/PJ4GfjIawpuX2E1 f8JYJJYLltE5yz2pPaM1Va3STjJxWjgzIGgTLdxGdaS0LLDMf2e4ktdCYOAItshN8FZ5 XkhcDoU9BObrusmt+rg34xBCUwRaYQ9QTApTU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.28.10 with SMTP id x10mr11560396oeg.71.1329874432635; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:33:52 -0800 (PST) Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com Received: by 10.182.122.66 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:33:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:33:52 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4aG7XklwlfzJhAsRjELJH-bVP6I Message-ID: Subject: Re: Scan performance on a big table as combination of multiple logic tables From: Stack To: dev@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Mikael Sitruk wrote: > This is interesting J.D. so, is there a limitation on the region size or > not? Can it be really any number? If so beside the collection time is there > any impact (perhaps the documentation should be updated too)? Yes. It should not be read as a hard limit. If that is what it says, we need a patch for the doc. St.Ack