Hi Mark, Currently maps are contained in a single key. The same warnings we give for value sizes in regular KV apply; however, the map has additional contained metadata that will give an approximately linear overhead (per-embedded type) to the object.
If you can constrain the various domains of your incoming data so as to box it in something small enough (~1MB or less), by all means use a map, but it is not a general solution for time-series data. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Mark Rechler <mrech...@bitly.com> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I'm curious if anyone has had experience using maps as containers for > a large amount of data. > > Are there any inherent size limits for maps? Could you put sets > equivalent to several gigabytes of data into one map? I'd also be > curious as to the performance impact of deleting said map. Would it be > the same impact as scanning keys in a bucket and deleting > sequentially? > > I'm exploring using a map to organize data within a time bucket if you > will to get around the leveldb back-end not having TTL support. > > Thanks in advance! > > -- > Mark Rechler > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > -- Sean Cribbs <s...@basho.com> Sr. Software Engineer Basho Technologies, Inc. http://basho.com/
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
