Good to hear! Given your experience, I'd appreciate your feedback on the section "6.3.6. Relationship Between RowKeys and Region Splits" in...
http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#schema.creation Š because it's on that same topic. Any other points to add to this? Thanks! On 2/14/13 11:08 PM, "Viral Bajaria" <viral.baja...@gmail.com> wrote: >I was able to figure it out. I had to use the createTable api which took >splitKeys instead of the startKey, endKey and numPartitions. > >If anyone comes across this issue and needs more feedback feel free to >ping >me. > >Thanks, >Viral > >On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Viral Bajaria ><viral.baja...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am creating a new table and want to pre-split the regions and am >>seeing >> some weird behavior. >> >> My table is designed as a composite of multiple fixed length byte arrays >> separated by a control character (for simplicity sake we can say the >> separator is _underscore_). The prefix of this rowkey is deterministic >> (i.e. length of 8 bytes) and I know it beforehand how many different >>prefix >> I will see in the near future. The values after the prefix is not >> deterministic. I wanted to create a pre-split tables based on the >>number of >> number of prefix combinations that I know. >> >> I ended up doing something like this: >> hbaseAdmin.createTable(tableName, Bytes.toBytes(1L), >> Bytes.toBytes(maxCombinationPrefixValue), maxCombinationPrefixValue) >> >> The create table worked fine and as expected it created the number of >> partitions. But when I write data to the table, I still see all the >>writes >> hitting a single region instead of hitting different regions based on >>the >> prefix. Is my thinking of splitting by prefix values flawed ? Do I have >>to >> split by some real rowkeys (though it's impossible for me to know what >> rowkeys will show up except the row prefix which is much more >> deterministic). >> >> For some reason I think I have a flawed understanding of the createTable >> API and that is causing the issue for me ? Should I use the byte[][] >> prefixes method and not the one that I am using right now ? >> >> Any suggestions/pointers ? >> >> Thanks, >> Viral >>
