Pierre-Alexandre,
'Temporal' as a term is a bit overloaded, if you mean 'temporal' in the
classic sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_database), i'm not sure
Hbase would be a good fit for that
if you simply want to store a time series, this is what i do to store a
sequence of events to allow range queries and sequential scans:
RowKey=time (or sequence id)
ColumnFamilies ={event types}
Columns={event name:value}
*I don't use versioning
If you are looking for aggregation reports on multi-dimensional time series
you may find this tool useful:http://github.com/zohmg/zohmg
Regards
Alex
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Pierre-Alexandre St-Jean <
pierrealexandre.stj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am quite new to hbase but i love the simplified api and the way it
> scales.
> I currently have a 3 node cluster of virtual machines and removing and
> adding them is really easy.
>
>
> I am in some data modeling struggle. I want to build some type of temporal
> database so here are my ideas and maybe you could tell me what would be the
> best to do.
>
> I want to analyze data over time. each data point has got attributes and
> then multiple values over time
>
> #1- infinite versions
>
>
>
> Table Row Key Family Attributs points point name attributes Contains the
> column keys : description,unit. 1 Version value No column key.
> Infinite
> versions
>
>
>
> #2- value column = time
>
>
>
> Table Row Key Family Attributs points point name attributes Contains the
> column keys : description,unit. 1 Version value column keys = time
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> # 3- point name /time = value
>
>
>
> Table Row Key Family Attributs points point name attributes Contains the
> column keys : description,unit. 1 Version point name / time value no
> column key 5 versions (to keep modifications)
>
>
>
> #4 -
> value column = time
>
>
>
> Table Row Key Family Attributs points point name attributes Contains the
> column keys : description,unit. 1 Version pointsValues point name / time
> value no column key 5 versions (to keep modifications)
> ---------------------
>
> I tought #1 would be the simplest then i tried to create an infinite
> versions family and it did not work (puttin 0 as number).
>
> #2 seems good but i think it would be hard to analyze the data over time
> like that.
>
> So #3 and #4 are remaining.
>
> I would do #3 but i don't know if it would be easy to iterate and know
> which
> data point exists skipping the /time part.
> --
> Pierre-Alexandre St-Jean
>
