interesting, I did not realize that. Thanks for the tip!

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:05 PM Adar Lieber-Dembo <> wrote:
The 60 tablets per table per node limit is just at table creation time. You can create a table that maxes out the number of tablets, then add more range partitions afterwards.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:00 PM Boris Tyukin <> wrote:
thanks for replying, Adar. Did some math and in our case we are hitting another Kudu limit - 60 tablets per node. We use high density nodes with 2 24-core CPUs so we have 88 hyperthreaded cores total per node or 88*24=2112 cores total. But I cannot create more than 60*24=1440 tablets per table. Looks like my tablets for the largest table will be around 8-10Gb in size. Should I be worried since recommendation is to keep tablets about 1Gb in size?

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:06 PM Adar Lieber-Dembo <> wrote:
Hi Boris,

> Also, when they say tablets - I assume this is before replication? so in reality, it is number of nodes x cpu cores / replication factor? If this is the case, it is not looking good...

No, I think this is post-replication. The underlying assumption is
that you want to maximize parallelism for large tables, and since
Impala only uses one read thread per tablet, that means ensuring the
number of tablets is close or equal to the overall number of cores.
However, during a scan Impala will choose one of the tablet's replicas
to read from, so you don't need to "reserve" a core for the other

>> can someone clarify if this recommendation below - does it mean physical or hyper-threaded CPU cores? quite a big difference...

I think this refers to hyper-threaded CPU cores (i.e. a CPU unit
capable of executing an OS thread). But I'd be curious to hear if your
workload is substantially more or less performant either way.