Hi Miles, You'll be fine if you use views [1] and multi-tenancy [2] to limit the number of physical HBase tables. Make sure you read about the limitations of views too [3].
Here's the way I've seen this modeled successfully: - create one schema per use case. This will let you leverage some nice features in HBase for quotas and throttling. If you'll have a single use case, you don't have to worry about it. Read about namespaces here [4] and make sure to enable them before you start creating tables. - define an immutable, multi-tenant base table that has TENANT_ID + TYPE_ID primary key. There are optimizations Phoenix does over immutable tables that you'll want to leverage (assuming you have use cases that fit into this category). This Phoenix table will be backed by a physical HBase table, but you won't execute Phoenix DML against it. Think of it as a kind of "abstract" type. Instead, you'll create updatable views over it. - define a regular/mutable, multi-tenant base table that has TENANT_ID + TYPE_ID primary key. Same deal as above, but this would be the base table for any tables in which the rows change in place. - define global views per "logical" table (against either your immutable base table or mutable base table depending on the functionality needed) with each view having a WHERE TYPE_ID='your type identifier' clause which adds specific columns to the primary key. This view will be updatable (i.e. you can execute DML against it). The columns you add to your PK will depend on your most common query patterns. - optionally define indexes on these global views. - each tenant can further extend or just use the global views. FYI, lots of good performance/tuning tips can be found here[5]. Thanks, James [1] https://phoenix.apache.org/views.html [2] https://phoenix.apache.org/multi-tenancy.html [3] https://phoenix.apache.org/views.html#Limitations [4] https://phoenix.apache.org/namspace_mapping.html [5] https://phoenix.apache.org/tuning_guide.html On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Miles Spielberg <mi...@box.com> wrote: > We're looking at employing Phoenix in a multi-tenant use case where > tenants can create their own tables and indexes, running into totals of > tens-of-thousands of each. Is this a supported scenario, or are we headed > for trouble? >
