Interesting use case. I think it depends on job many jobId's you expect to
have. If it is on the order of thousands, I would caution against going the
one table per jobid approach, since for every table, there is some master
overhead, as well as file structures in hdfs. If jobId's are managable,
going with separate tables makes sense if you want to efficiently delete
all the data related to a job.
Also pre-splitting will depend on expected number of jobIds / batchIds and
their ranges vs desired number of regions. You would want to keep number of
regions hosted by a single region server in the low tens, thus, your splits
can be across jobs or within jobs depending on cardinality. Can you share
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My understanding of your use case is that data for different jobIds would
> be continuously loaded into the underlying table(s).
> Looks like you can have one table per job. This way you drop the table
> after map reduce is complete. In the single table approach, you would
> delete many rows in the table which is not as fast as dropping the separate
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Cameron Gandevia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Hi
> > I am new to HBase, I have been trying to POC an application and have a
> > design questions.
> > Currently we have a single table with the following key design
> > jobId_batchId_bundleId_uniquefileId
> > This is an offline processing system so data would be bulk loaded into
> > HBase via map/reduce jobs. We only need to support report generation
> > queries using map/reduce over a batch (And possibly a single column
> > with the batchId as the start/end scan key. Once we have finished
> > processing a job we are free to remove the data from HBase.
> > We have varied workloads so a job could be made up of 10 rows, 100,000
> > or 1 billion rows with the average falling somewhere around 10 million
> > rows.
> > My question is related to pre-splitting. If we have a billion rows all
> > the same batchId (Our map/reduce scan key) my understanding is we should
> > perform pre-splitting to create buckets hosted by different regions. If a
> > jobs workload can be so varied would it make sense to have a single table
> > containing all jobs? Or should we create 1 table per job and pre-split
> > table for the given workload? If we had separate table we could drop them
> > when no longer needed.
> > If we didn't have a separate table per job how should we perform
> > Should we choose our largest possible workload and split for that? even
> > though 90% of our jobs would fall in the lower bound in terms of row
> > Would we experience any issue purging jobs of varying sizes if everything
> > was in a single table?
> > any advice would be greatly appreciated.
> > Thanks