hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Namespace Delimiter
Date Wed, 08 May 2013 18:54:47 GMT
"." is the de-facto way of doing something like this, but now I tend to buy
the argument that forcing people to rename their tables will be a lot of

I think it is reasonable to
 - Remove "." to be a valid table name character. You won't be able to
create a table with a "." in the name.
 - Keep migrated tables under default namespace. default namespace will
contain tables with dot in their name as well.
 - If you have a table "a.b", you cannot create a namespace named "a"
 - Whenever we refer to table "a.b", we can search for namespace "a", if
not found search for table "a.b" in default namespace.

Would that work.

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