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 indexes directly on physical tables, you're somewhat bounded by the hit you're willing to take on the write side, as the cost of maintaining the index is similar to the cost of the write to the data table. So the extra number of physical tables for indexes seems within the bounds of what HBase could handle. How many secondary indexes are you creating and are you ok with the extra write-time cost? >From a code consistency standpoint, using the same approach across local, global, and view indexes might simplify things, though. Please file a JIRA with a bit more detail on your use case. Thanks, James On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Simon Wang <simon.w...@airbnb.com> wrote: > 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, when Phoenix builds indexes on a view, it stores > all indexes in a table associated with the underlying table of the view. > e.g. if V1 is a view of T1, all indexes on V1 will be stored in _IDX_T1. It > would be great if this behavior can be optionally turned on for indexes on > tables. > > Best, > Simon
