hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin O'dell" <kevin.od...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: restriction on the number of tables in hbase and its impact on performance
Date Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:04:35 GMT

  This is an interesting question, but it sounds like overkill.  I would
not worry about having tables up that aren't active.  If you keep your
active region count down and your memory footprint reasonable <16GB heap
you should be fine.

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Rohit Kelkar <rohitkelkar@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have asked this question on stackoverflow -
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12066856/restriction-on-the-number-of-tables-in-hbase-and-its-impact-on-performance
> Also asking the same on this list --
> Our hbase schema in production has 5 tables. We have N clients where
> in only 10% of the clients are active at any given instant. So for me
> it looks like a waste of resources to keep the data of remaining 90%
> clients active. I was thinking of creating 5 tables per client so that
> I can keep the active client's tables enabled and the remaining
> client's tables disabled. From what I have read if we exceed 1000
> regions per region server then performance starts degrading. But I am
> sure not to hit that limit. My questions
> If I disable a set of tables then does it mean that I am putting less
> load on hbase?
> Does this seem like a sound strategy overall?
> - Rohit Kelkar

Kevin O'Dell
Customer Operations Engineer, Cloudera

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