No, the second table is too large to fit in memory.
On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 11:26 -0800, Stack wrote: > Mark the second-table in-memory in the schema. And for the first, > have it not use cache at all. This way, cache should only have > content from the table that is read. Does the second table fit fully > in memory? > > St.Ack > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Joel Halbert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I have an application with two HBase tables. > > > > One table is written to frequently, by a crawler writing web pages. > > > > Another table is written to occasionally (the result of some > > processing), but end users read data from this table, and I want the > > read response times to be as low as possible. > > > > I only have one server on which to host both tables. > > > > What tuning should I consider to minimise the read latency on the second > > table (there will be relatively few users, so throughput is less of a > > concern, for the time being) ? > > > > > > Regards, > > Joel > > > > > > > > > >
