[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13215176#comment-13215176
]
stack commented on HBASE-4365:
------------------------------
@Lars You want to put an upper bound on the number of regions?
I think if we do power of three, we'll lose some of the benefit J-D sees above;
we'll fan out the regions slower.
Do you want to put an upper bound on the number of regions per regionserver for
a table? Say, three? As in, when we get to three regions on a server, just
scoot the split size up to the maximum. So, given a power of two, we'd split
on first flush, then the next split would happen at (2*2*128M) 512M, then
9*128M=1.2G and thereafter we'd split at the max, say 10G?
Or should we just commit this for now and do more in another patch?
> Add a decent heuristic for region size
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-4365
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4365
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.92.1, 0.94.0
> Reporter: Todd Lipcon
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: usability
> Attachments: 4365-v2.txt, 4365.txt
>
>
> A few of us were brainstorming this morning about what the default region
> size should be. There were a few general points made:
> - in some ways it's better to be too-large than too-small, since you can
> always split a table further, but you can't merge regions currently
> - with HFile v2 and multithreaded compactions there are fewer reasons to
> avoid very-large regions (10GB+)
> - for small tables you may want a small region size just so you can
> distribute load better across a cluster
> - for big tables, multi-GB is probably best
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
