Rohit, This is an interesting question, but it sounds like overkill. I would not worry about having tables up that aren't active. If you keep your active region count down and your memory footprint reasonable <16GB heap you should be fine.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Rohit Kelkar <[email protected]> wrote: > I have asked this question on stackoverflow - > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12066856/restriction-on-the-number-of-tables-in-hbase-and-its-impact-on-performance > > Also asking the same on this list -- > > Our hbase schema in production has 5 tables. We have N clients where > in only 10% of the clients are active at any given instant. So for me > it looks like a waste of resources to keep the data of remaining 90% > clients active. I was thinking of creating 5 tables per client so that > I can keep the active client's tables enabled and the remaining > client's tables disabled. From what I have read if we exceed 1000 > regions per region server then performance starts degrading. But I am > sure not to hit that limit. My questions > > If I disable a set of tables then does it mean that I am putting less > load on hbase? > Does this seem like a sound strategy overall? > > - Rohit Kelkar > -- Kevin O'Dell Customer Operations Engineer, Cloudera
