Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records

>> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at the HBase level. As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you may try using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal API and let us know if it works for you. Sharing a sample code if you wanna try. /**

Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records

Hi Josh Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to respond. Appreciated Simon On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on top of > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion

Re: Any reason for so small phoenix.mutate.batchSize by default?

I observer that there is some extra mutations in batch for every my UPSERTs For example if app call executeUpdate() only 5 times then on commit there will be "DEBUG MutationState:1046 - Sent batch of 10" Can’t figure out where this extra mutations comes from and why. This is mean that “useful”

Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records

Hi Simon, Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on top of what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on cell ACLs which is good). I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the TenantID is not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the

Re: Any reason for so small phoenix.mutate.batchSize by default?

Hey Alexander, Was just poking at the code for this: it looks like this is really just determining the number of mutations that get "processed together" (as opposed to a hard limit). Since you have done some work, I'm curious if you could generate some data to help back up your suggestion:

Any reason for so small phoenix.mutate.batchSize by default?

Hello all, 1) There is bug in documentation - http://phoenix.apache.org/tuning.html phoenix.mutate.batchSize is not 1000, but only 100 by default