I'm also good with HBase.
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Nick Allen wrote:
> +1 I think going with HBase is a good approach for now. Thanks for laying
> out the pros and cons.
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Merriman wrote:
> > I would like
+1 I think going with HBase is a good approach for now. Thanks for laying
out the pros and cons.
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Merriman wrote:
> I would like to bring this discussion to a conclusion and update the PR
> accordingly. To clarify on whether we depend
I would like to bring this discussion to a conclusion and update the PR
accordingly. To clarify on whether we depend on an RDBMS right now, we do
but only for authentication which will probably be replaced at some point.
So the answer is not really. I personally agree with Simon and think we
> Glad you agree with me that this isn’t HBase scale… it’s clearly not. I
would never suggest introducing HBase for something like this, but since
Ah, gotcha. Misunderstood your statement.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:01 AM Simon Elliston Ball <
Glad you agree with me that this isn’t HBase scale… it’s clearly not. I would
never suggest introducing HBase for something like this, but since it’s there.
On the idea of using the Ambari RDBMS for the same basis of it being there, I
see your point. That said, it can be postgres, sql server,
I fall marginally on the side of an RDBMS. There is definitely a case to
be made on both sides, but I'll point out a few things for the RDBMS.
(1) Flexibility. Using an RDBMS is going to provide us with much greater
flexibility going forward. We really don't know what the specific use
Couldn’t agree with you more Otto! On the perms / ACLs / AXOs / groups / users
etc concerns though, there are other Apache projects (such as Ranger) which
have already done a lot of the hard thinking and architecture / data structure
/ admin ui and persistence pieces for us, so I’d say we lean
Fair enough, I don’t have a preference. I think my point is that we need
to understand the use cases we can think of more, especially if we are
going to be having permissions, grouping and crud around that, and
preloading, before just throwing everything in RDBMS -or- HBASE.
On February 2,
True, and that is a requirement I’ve heard a lot (standard views or field sets
in shared sets of saved search for example). That would definitely rule out
sticking with the current approach (browser local storage, per Casey’s
That said, I’m not sure that changes my views on
It is not uncommon to want to have ‘shared’ preferences or setups. Think
of shared dashboards or queries vs. personal version in jira. Would RDBMS
help with that?
On February 2, 2018 at 07:17:04, Simon Elliston Ball (
Introducing a RDBMS to the stack
Introducing a RDBMS to the stack seems unnecessary for this.
If we consider the data access patterns for user profiles, we are unlikely to
query into them, or indeed do anything other than look them up, or write them
out by a username key. To that end, using an ORM to translate a a nested
Personally, I'd be in favor of something like Maria DB as an open source
repo. Or any other ansi sql store. On the positive side, it should mesh
seamlessly with ORM tools. And the schema for this should be pretty
vanilla, I'd imagine. I might even consider skipping ORM for straight JDBC
So, I'll answer your question with some questions:
- No matter the data store we use upgrading will take some care, right?
- Do we currently depend on a RDBMS anywhere? I want to say that we do
in the REST layer already, right?
- If we don't use a RDBMs, what's the other option?
There is currently a PR up for review that allows a user to configure and
save the list of facet fields that appear in the left column of the Alerts
UI: https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/853. The REST layer has ORM
support which means we can store those in a relational database.
Mail list logo