I'm going from memory. There was a hardcoded number. I'd have to go back and try to find it.
From a practical standpoint, going over 1000 regions per RS will put you on thin ice. Too many regions can kill your system. On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Kevin O'dell wrote: > Mike, > > I just saw a system with 2500 Regions per RS(crazy I know, we are fixing > that). I did not think there was a hard coded limit... > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Amandeep Khurana <ama...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have come across clusters with 100s of tables but that typically is >> due to a sub optimal table design. >> >> The question here is - why do you need to distribute your data over >> lots of tables? What's your access pattern and what kind of data are >> you putting in? Or is this just a theoretical question? >> >> On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Adrien Mogenet <adrien.moge...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> I read some good practices about number of columns / column families, but >>> nothing about the number of tables. >>> What if I need to spread my data among hundred or thousand (big) tables ? >>> What should I care about ? I guess I should keep a tight number of >>> storeFiles per RegionServer ? >>> >>> -- >>> Adrien Mogenet >>> http://www.mogenet.me >> > > > > -- > Kevin O'Dell > Customer Operations Engineer, Cloudera
