Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F00326625 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 11964 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2011 21:35:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 11930 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2011 21:35:46 -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 11922 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2011 21:35:46 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:35:46 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of leifwickland@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.83.169] (HELO mail-pv0-f169.google.com) (74.125.83.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:35:40 +0000 Received: by pvc12 with SMTP id 12so2893190pvc.14 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:35:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=EOWQh1aZwzguIsI7phtnJQ3+BY7DXVh72X6RXtmMzpY=; b=Y6nIadoHyu2E2iQrzvhUUIpNH+FmK6R/i+Kb77f9cVGe0QyZQlu24HbbjO/2TylWx1 Hl5Uo2dMLfEvNn42ceXba+q40sfTBzdfIqQUt/IXgtvQVw40ZIQlkpsb9yoh/sPUui1R L06ifh/MY/Pq/Biqi6ew8ninSW7nySlPtZuXA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=hoJWmBkbqrMqMN56m3g4urpxQxfWiBijz+w3YEzIZr4RHXIrWe6ME7VPKFINy1Gl7+ 4u76i/SxoI6IoHVPOh8n5AthW8/ZkgSt6CeyGJj1m1kxgkx4s511ZVQJ46akJEFdo4Jt 1rlJ91BTHr9O+rIgD3YWW/h1npZIodMdjxqGg= Received: by 10.68.34.228 with SMTP id c4mr1833954pbj.463.1308000920030; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:35:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.58.137 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <67680900F79B1D4F99C844EE386FC5952823BECD30@EX2K7VS03.4emm.local> <4DED109E.5030605@qualtrics.com> From: Leif Wickland Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:35:05 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Question from HBase book: "HBase currently does not do well with anything about two or three column families" To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520ecb7344cba04a59eb245 --bcaec520ecb7344cba04a59eb245 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks for replying, J-D. My interpretation is that they try to keep that number low, from page 2: > > "It is our intent that the number of distinct column families in a > table be small (in the hundreds at most)" > Table 2 provides some actual CF/table numbers. One of the crawl tables has 16 CFs and one of the Google Base tables had 29 CFs. > Could you just store that in the same family? > Yup. I could. Their would be a little weirdness to it, but I think it's doable. It seems like that's the consensus suggestion. > Row locking is rarely a good idea, it doesn't scale and they currently > aren't persisted anywhere except the RS memory (so if it dies...). > Using a single family might be better for you. Thanks for the pointer. Leif --bcaec520ecb7344cba04a59eb245--