Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # user >> Multiple tables vs big fat table


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Multiple tables vs big fat table
Mark,
Simple answer ... it depends... ;-)

Longer answer...
What's your use case? What's your access pattern? Is the type of data, in this case evenly distributed in terms of size?

Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos...

Mike Segel

On Nov 18, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is it better to have many smaller tables are one larger table? For example if we wanted to store user action logs we could do either of the following:
>
> Multiple tables:
> - SearchLog
> - PageViewLog
> - LoginLog
>
> or
>
> One table:
>  - ActionLog where the key could be a concatenation of the action type ie (search, pageview, login)
>
> Any ideas? Are there any performance considerations on having multiple smaller tables?
>
> Thanks
>
>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB