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 8136FD706 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:05:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 32385 invoked by uid 500); 24 Aug 2012 15:05:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 32337 invoked by uid 500); 24 Aug 2012 15:05:03 -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 32329 invoked by uid 99); 24 Aug 2012 15:05:03 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:05:03 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of kevin.odell@cloudera.com designates 209.85.212.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.41] (HELO mail-vb0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:04:56 +0000 Received: by vbkv13 with SMTP id v13so2668808vbk.14 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:04:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=EBY4LgDpA8P08afdPuOqOUq4lxQDVsFuBIRyT8MxJK0=; b=h8wO/dbtr3P2qcpRutQZoeVaXQBPR9VjZ4plM1FBu9e77w+NHf7Ziq9ruc4FTnXzgT abyHjdrpVRHopUsnue7xB4xdXinS/mBz9Nx+g1qG00j6I6f1AICPeZi4qvhQln5XUq6u Dw2Re/cwlh6JU7aZoObEpSRZjuENzZuCZ4KKR7eAyYd/eKudT1QWqy7O3Pd8I8BNhHOZ aTIg1a1WfuKL46J31gjaCVeIPltj3A+CI9Tm+7jinnCQ9AyI1VQDScAxAdMuO6CnmZ8J Jz5QFAssIW6Cs2byCI47GyMj4VRJ+QPI9pickhjuFYUyqec27Yupk8Lyj0ASU+Vi2YAv zOWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.228.233 with SMTP id sl9mr5337716vec.5.1345820675594; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.145.164 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:04:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:04:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: restriction on the number of tables in hbase and its impact on performance From: "Kevin O'dell" To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdcacfc4cda9304c8044bae X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmxjtAwH8zZmPWcI7zigMbCq3KPtpPp/vKR8trRglMO6OQgk+E4/J/EKZwskI5aK9Z4u/zw --047d7bdcacfc4cda9304c8044bae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Rohit, 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 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 --047d7bdcacfc4cda9304c8044bae--