hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Meil <doug.m...@explorysmedical.com>
Subject Re: schema design: rows vs wide columns
Date Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:21:56 GMT

For the record, the refGuide mentions potential issues of CF lumpiness
that you mentioned:


6.2.1. Cardinality of ColumnFamilies

Where multiple ColumnFamilies exist in a single table, be aware of the
cardinality (i.e., number of rows).
      If ColumnFamilyA has 1 million rows and ColumnFamilyB has 1 billion
rows, ColumnFamilyA's data will likely be spread
      across many, many regions (and RegionServers).  This makes mass
scans for ColumnFamilyA less efficient.

Š. anything that needs to be updated/added for this?

On 4/8/13 12:39 AM, "lars hofhansl" <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

>I think the main problem is that all CFs have to be flushed if one gets
>large enough to require a flush.
>(Does anyone remember why exactly that is? And do we still need that now
>that the memstoreTS is stored in the HFiles?)
>So things are fine as long as all CFs have roughly the same size. But if
>you have one that gets a lot of data and many others that are smaller,
>we'd end up with a lot of unnecessary and small store files from the
>smaller CFs.
>Anything else known that is bad about many column families?
>-- Lars
> From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
>Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 3:52 PM
>Subject: Re: schema design: rows vs wide columns
>Is there a pointer to evidence/experiment backed analysis of this
>I'm sure there is some basis for this text in the book but I recommend we
>strike it. We could replace it with YCSB or LoadTestTool driven latency
>graphs for different workloads maybe. Although that would also be a big
>simplification of 'schema design' considerations, it would not be so
>starkly lacking background.
>On Sunday, April 7, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:
>> From http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#number.of.cfs :
>> HBase currently does not do well with anything above two or three column
>> families so keep the number of column families in your schema low.
>> Cheers
>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Ted <yuzhihong@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > With regard to number of column families, 3 is the recommended
>> > >
>> >
>> > How did you come up w/ the number '3'?  Is it a 'hard' 3? Or does it
>> > depend?  If the latter, on what does it depend?
>> > Thanks,
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>Best regards,
>   - Andy
>Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>(via Tom White)

View raw message