Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jdcryans@gmail.com designates
 209.85.161.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jdcryans@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4F296F8A.5000804@gmail.com>
References: <4F296F8A.5000804@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:37:32 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAGpTDNdGdYohmrc+gYWE66rKNCbHue5g+KAaUv5ngJ0iGgtzXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: One table or multiple tables?
From: Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

You're not telling us much about your read patterns and data
distribution, but I would go with the former solution for the sake of
simplicity. You'd want to write your row keys in the same format as
OpenTSDB does: http://opentsdb.net/schema.html

J-D

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Mark <static.void.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> We would like to track all of our users interactions ordered by time.
> Product views, searches, logins, etc. There are (at least) two ways of
> accomplishing this:
>
> We could use one table 'user_logs' and have keys in the format of.
> USER_ID/TYPE/TIMESTAMP. Type could be (product view, search, login, etc)
>
> Or we could have multiple tables for each type.. UserProductLogs,
> UserSearchLogs, etc.
>
> What are the pros/cons of each strategy and which one do you think I should
> employ?
>
> - M