hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is HTable threadsafe and cachable?
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2011 07:50:34 GMT

HTable instances are not really thread safe at this time.  You can
cache them, check out HTablePool.  But the creation cost of a HTable
instance isnt that high, the actual TCP socket creation and management
is done at a lower level and all HTable interfaces share these common
caches and sockets. So you can create a number of HTable instances
without creating a large number of sockets.

Oh and be sure to re-use the same Configuration object, or else you'll
end up with multiple sockets.  This is because we use the Config
object to know when two HTables are accessing the same cluster.


On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Ashish Shinde <ashish@strandls.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> We are using hbase to power a web application. The current
> implementation of the data access classes maintain a static HTable
> instance to read and write. The reason being getting hold of HTable
> instance looks costly.
> In this scenario the HTable instances could more or less be perpetually
> cached. Is it reasonable to assume that HTables do not have some
> inherent timeout and are threadsafe across gets and puts?
> Thanks and regards,
> - Ashish

View raw message