Thanks Christopher for valuable insight. Right now we don't have scenario which it needs to query data from multiple customers at once. Perhaps some time in the future, and that 'future' seems could be years from now (or perhaps never), so I think I am inclined to implement them as separate tables for now.
Though they are in separate tables, I will still apply visibility column for each row in the table. The visibility string could be something like customer id. The caller will be another app of ours, so we can trust it (still need to pass that customer id as authz string). In term of scan performance, is it true that if we shard by column family or different table, it won't matter much since I'd think we also can create separate locality group for different column family)? Thanks for the tips on using namespace, originally I'd think of using prefix the table names with customer id. I guess they are no difference, right? Thanks, Z -- View this message in context: http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/sharding-via-different-tables-tp14884p14893.html Sent from the Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
