-Re: Maximum number of tables ?
Michael Segel 2012-07-13, 17:40
I'm going from memory. There was a hardcoded number. I'd have to go back and try to find it.
From a practical standpoint, going over 1000 regions per RS will put you on thin ice.
Too many regions can kill your system.
On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Kevin O'dell wrote:
> I just saw a system with 2500 Regions per RS(crazy I know, we are fixing
> that). I did not think there was a hard coded limit...
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Amandeep Khurana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have come across clusters with 100s of tables but that typically is
>> due to a sub optimal table design.
>> The question here is - why do you need to distribute your data over
>> lots of tables? What's your access pattern and what kind of data are
>> you putting in? Or is this just a theoretical question?
>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Adrien Mogenet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Hi there,
>>> I read some good practices about number of columns / column families, but
>>> nothing about the number of tables.
>>> What if I need to spread my data among hundred or thousand (big) tables ?
>>> What should I care about ? I guess I should keep a tight number of
>>> storeFiles per RegionServer ?
>>> Adrien Mogenet
> Kevin O'Dell
> Customer Operations Engineer, Cloudera