Re: Index tables at scale

Thanks Mujtaba. This is good to know. It is possible manipulate the key bit to avoid the hot-spotting, so we are probably trying unsalted table out. Still, it would be nice if combined indexes in a single table is possible. > On Jul 11, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Mujtaba Chohan

Re: Index tables at scale

FYI if you keys are not written in order i.e. you are not concerned about write hot-spotting/write throughput then try writing your data to an un-salted table. Read performance for un-salted table can be comparable or better to salted one with stats

Re: Index tables at scale

This indexes will be salted indeed. (so is the data table). If all indexes reside in the same table, there will be only 512 regions in total (256 for data table, 256 for the combined index table). Indeed the combined index table will be 12x large as a single index table. But it doesn’t cover

Re: Index tables at scale

Will the index be salted (and that's why it's 256 regions per table)? If not, how many regions would there be if all indexes are in the same table (assuming the table is 12x bigger than one index table)? On Monday, July 11, 2016, Simon Wang wrote: > Thanks, Mujtaba. What

Re: Index tables at scale

Thanks, Mujtaba. What you wrote is exactly what I meant. While not all our tables needs these many regions and indexes, the num of regions/region server can grow quickly. -Simon > On Jul 11, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Mujtaba Chohan wrote: > > 12 index tables * 256 region per

Re: Index tables at scale

12 index tables * 256 region per table = ~3K regions for index tables assuming we are talking of covered index which implies 200+ regions/region server on a 15 node cluster. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:58 PM, James Taylor wrote: > Hi Simon, > > I might be missing

Re: Index tables at scale

Hi Simon, I might be missing something, but with 12 separate index tables or 1 index table, the amount of data will be the same. Won't there be the same number of regions either way? Thanks, James On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Simon Wang wrote: > Hi James, > >

Re: Index tables at scale

Hi James, Thanks for the response. In our use case, there is a 256 region table, and we want to build ~12 indexes on it. We have 15 region servers. If each index is in its own table, that would be a total of 221 regions per region server of this single table. I think the extra write time cost

Re: Index tables at scale

Hi Simon, The reason we've taken this approach with views is that it's possible with multi-tenancy that the number of views would grow unbounded since you might end up with a view per tenant (100K or 1M views or more - clearly too many for HBase to handle as separate tables). With secondary

Index tables at scale

Hi all, I am writing to ask if there is a way to let Phoenix store all indexes on a single table in the same HBase table. If each index must be stored in a separate table, creating more than a few indexes on table with a large number of regions will not scale well. From what I have learned,