Hi Josh, Thanks for the reply and the explanation. It does make sense indeed, in fact I was thinking the same yesterday after playing with it more via shell. The reason I came up with current design is mostly because it's convenient and satisfy our needs. However, what works doesn't mean it is the right thing to do :-)
I think the option #1 you suggested will work, i.e. embed that customer id as part of the row id. For option #2 (i.e. using second table as index), the same row id value can belong to different customer id, which means I have to embed the customer id to the row id to make it unique, which also means it's same as option #1, hence no need second table. Thanks, Z -- View this message in context: http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/scan-command-hung-tp15286p15328.html Sent from the Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
