hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sonal Goyal <sonalgoy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Number of tables
Date Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:25:36 GMT
Hi Mark,

When you say that your use case does not require searching across multiple
types, what do you mean? Do you have cases when you search with type?

Best Regards,
Crux: Reporting for HBase <https://github.com/sonalgoyal/crux>
Nube Technologies <http://www.nubetech.co>


On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Mark <static.void.dev@gmail.com> wrote:

> We are logging all user actions into hbase. These actions include searches,
> product views and clicks.
> We are currently storing them in one table with row keys like so:
> "#{type}/#{user}/#{time}", where type is either click, search, view and user
> is the current user logged in. Obviously using this method lead to region
> hot spotting as the start of each key is fairly static. This got me to
> thinking on what alternatives ways I could model this type of data and I was
> hoping I could get some suggestions from the community.
> Which would be more advisable?
> 1) Keep the current all logs go to one table pattern that is describe
> above.
> 2) Keep the current all logs go to one table pattern that is describe above
> but switch the type and user fields which would lead to more randomized keys
> thus reducing hot spots
> 3) Create separate tables for each type of log we are saving... ie have
> search table, click table, view table.
> Our use case does not require us searching across multiple types so I'm
> leaning towards #3 now but I was wondering if there were any cons to using
> this method? Is it worse to have more tables than less?
> Thanks for help
> -M

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