Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 51585 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2011 22:52:56 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2011 22:52:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 99254 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2011 22:52:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 99205 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2011 22:52:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 99197 invoked by uid 99); 1 Mar 2011 22:52:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:52:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.41] (HELO mail-fx0-f41.google.com) (209.85.161.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:52:49 +0000 Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so6897638fxm.14 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:52:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=kXVQlSi4HqQQKUSNNk01TPp/EVbjwIHi3QWq/2cyJRM=; b=XPfOqve/a4FkMIJLubIEz9uXngHP/0wLnjqNdncbL+EVzCxKu6BAzBihjYSMSaEpq7 lvmbhcPXjL1dVE1zGf/46Ftqy6HeqxpK17UuaK2au4R86IjMQbxTdgnw951RfPtZf8Sq gOgGLa596LuFc3E8t8VJyvmr6c7gzROwp6l78= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=dcCSkjRRe+OkKTLZhrVCUUsk85HBswHW1gCEzxJNQzqIasDgK0HHtsWWVtpKCkNBZk JA8qU4xvge/+xn8ytCcK49Ax8XPBgnVCRfkxy7bUEPn8S2V9SmaKZ51dW4Tkg4xsUr/6 UxDQmVAPCkZ3wjrxfrKQtLR1z49lhkfgowuYQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.87.1 with SMTP id u1mr8824429fal.112.1299019947965; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:52:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.74.142 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:52:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2D6136772A13B84E95DF6DA79E85A9F0013649DDD4D0@NSPEXMBX-A.the-lab.llnl.gov> References: <2D6136772A13B84E95DF6DA79E85A9F0013649DDD4D0@NSPEXMBX-A.the-lab.llnl.gov> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:52:27 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: qualifier's number limitations (hbase 0.90.x) From: Ted Yu To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3054a48f8dfd75049d73a6e4 --20cf3054a48f8dfd75049d73a6e4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> If you want to be able to get only a few qualifiers from a scan, then putting them in one cell will force the server to send you all of the values, using up a lot more network I/O. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1537 On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Buttler, David wrote: > Everything in HBase is stored as a byte[]: table name, column name, > qualifier name, and values. > > If you have your own scheme for batching a large number of qualifiers into > a single column, then you should be able to get greater efficiency as every > cell in hbase has a copy of the row key, column, qualifier. > > The limits that you will run into is total row size. It is not a good idea > to have a single row fill an entire region (256MB by default). But, if you > can keep your cells under 10 MB in your scheme, I wouldn't expect there to > be a problem. > > In terms of scanning efficiency, I think it depends on how you scan your > table. If you scans need to return every value, then you should be ahead by > storing them all in one column. If you want to be able to get only a few > qualifiers from a scan, then putting them in one cell will force the server > to send you all of the values, using up a lot more network I/O. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oleg Ruchovets [mailto:oruchovets@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 2:11 PM > To: user@hbase.apache.org > Subject: qualifier's number limitations (hbase 0.90.x) > > Hi , > we have a hbase table which currently has qualifier's value a byte[] > array. > We did it for the reducing qualifiers number. > > In case object has 5-10 fields , > > so instead of > qualifier1:value1 > qualifier2:value2 > qualifier3:value3 > qualifier4:value4 > qualifier5:value5 > ...... > qualifier10:value10 > > we have > qualifier1: byte[] array. > > *questions:* > 1) I believe , using the first approach (qualifier1:value1 and values > are > primitive types like int , double ) server size scans will work much more > faster , Am I write? > 2) In our case with the first approach we can get 50000-100000 > qualifiers. > Is it possible to handle such number of qualifiers? What is the limitation > of qualifiers number? > > Thanks in advance > Oleg. > --20cf3054a48f8dfd75049d73a6e4--