hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Graham <billgra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: any multitenancy suggestions for HBase?
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:29:06 GMT
Thanks Andy, that will be a big help once it's out.

What do people think about introducing the concept of "databases" to HBase?
Just a container of tables really, but something that can be used to group
ACLs around at some point, or to just keep the table list manageable.

Has there been any discussion about this yet?

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>wrote:

> > Since there are no HBase ACLs
>
> This is true only until HBASE-3025 is ready and goes in, post 0.92. It may
> not be of immediate help now but yes HBase will have ACLs. They are on the
> roadmap.
>
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/14/11, Barney Frank <barneyfranks1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Barney Frank <barneyfranks1@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: any multitenancy suggestions for HBase?
> > To: user@hbase.apache.org, billgraham@gmail.com
> > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 5:04 AM
> > Our implementation supports multiple
> > customers that share the same tables
> > and column families.  We use the customerId as the
> > first token of the Row Id
> > i.e. "CUST123|someOtherRowQualifier".  For all
> > customer queries, we add
> > their customerId as the row prefix and, of course, ensure
> > that they are
> > authorized within our app.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Bill Graham <billgraham@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello there,
> > >
> > > We have a number of different groups within our
> > organization who will soon
> > > be working within the same HBase cluster and we're
> > trying to set up some
> > > best practices to keep thinks organized. Since there
> > are no HBase ACLs  and
> > > no concept of multiple databases in the cluster, we're
> > looking to propose a
> > > simple convention that will hopefully keep people from
> > stepping on each
> > > others toes (or worse!).
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any best/worst practices they're
> > willing to share w.r.t.
> > > thing likes table/column naming schemes in a
> > multitenant environment? For
> > > table names for example, is there anything better than
> > a basic
> > > dot-delimited
> > > naming convention with the group name as the first
> > token?
> > >
> > > Also, I assume there's no performance cost with using
> > long table names like
> > > there is with long CF:col names. Please let me know if
> > that's not the case.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Bill
> > >
> >
>

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