hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Shelukhin <ser...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Namespace Delimiter
Date Wed, 08 May 2013 19:01:36 GMT
I think if we want to use a dot, we need to be able to support both old
tables with dot, and table in namespace. Consequently parsing should not
rely on a dot or store "truth" info about NS tables as one string with a
dot, I lost track of the patch a while ago but I think it was considered at
some point...
I thought about it a bit and I think the order of resolution should be
old-dot-table overriding namespace table. Creating tables with a dot should
not be allowed. Creating tables in namespace that would be shadowed by
legacy old tables should not be allowed too (e.g. if you have old table
"foo.bar" trying to create table "bar" in ns "foo" would cause an error).

So users have no inconvenience with legacy tables, and only get
inconvenienced in a very explicit way if they use namespaces in a certain

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:55 PM, James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com>wrote:

> Phoenix uses  <schema name> . <table name> to reference tables, so
> allowing a "." in names would make parsing ambiguous.
>     James
> On 05/07/2013 11:36 PM, Stack wrote:
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Francis Liu <toffer@apache.org> wrote:
>>  One thing I had in mind was to automatically assume that the first dot
>>> delimits the namespace name. During upgrade we automatically create those
>>> namespaces and assign the tables accordingly. They can then eventually
>>> migrate/rename their tables (if needed) at a later time. In the extreme
>>> case that would be one namespace per table. For which we will provide a
>>> tool to rename offline tables.
>>> I'm guessing most cases would not require a rename. What else do people
>>> use dots in their table name for?
>> With namespaces in place, will '.' be illegal in a table name?
>> With namespaces, is there a no-namespace/default location?  If so, what
>> will it be called or how will you refer to tables in the
>> no-namespace/default namespace?
>> I just took a user's production website where there are hundreds of
>> tables.
>>   For no good reason that I can see, they happened to have choosen '_' and
>> '-' as table name partitioner: i.e. application_feature, etc.  My sense is
>> they could just as easily have gone with '.' but maybe the '.META.' name
>> frightens people away from '.'?
>> Anyone using '.' in their table names?
>> St.Ack

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message