Hi Manoj,
Thanks for your advise.
More or less, basically we do the same. As you pointed out, we now face
with many cases that can not be solved by data modeling, and which are
reaching to 100 millions of columns.
We can split them down to multiple pieces of metadata rows, but that will
bring mo
Hi Takenori,
I can't tell for sure without knowing what kind of data you have and how
much you have.You can use the random partitioner and use the concept of
metadata row that stores the row key, as for example like below
{metadata_row}: key1 | key2 | key3
key1:column1 | column2
When you do the
It can handle some millions of columns, but not more like 10M. I mean, a
request for such a row concentrates on a particular node, so the
performance degrades.
> I also had idea for semi-ordered partitioner - instead of single MD5, to
have two MD5's.
works for us with wide row with about 40-50 M,
Hi Nick,
> token and key are not same. it was like this long time ago (single MD5
assumed single key)
True. That reminds me of making a test with the latest 1.2 instead of our
current 1.0!
> if you want ordered, you probably can arrange your data in a way so you
can get it in ordered fashion.
Y
my five cents -
token and key are not same. it was like this long time ago (single MD5
assumed single key)
if you want ordered, you probably can arrange your data in a way so you can
get it in ordered fashion.
for example long ago, i had single column family with single key and about
2-3 M columns
Hi,
I am trying to implement a custom partitioner that evenly distributes, yet
preserves order.
The partitioner returns a token by BigInteger as RandomPartitioner does,
while does a decorated key by string as OrderPreservingPartitioner does.
* for now, since IPartitioner does not support differen
ring this up because it confused me until recently.)
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Steve Lihn wrote:
>>
>> I have a question on using Order Preserving Partitioner.
>>
>> Many rowKeys in my system will be related to dates, so it seems natural to
>> use Orde
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Steve Lihn wrote:
> I have a question on using Order Preserving Partitioner.
>
> Many rowKeys in my system will be related to dates, so it seems natural to
> use Order Preserving Partitioner instead of the default Random Partitioner.
> However, I
, then you should
use Random Partitioner.
(I bring this up because it confused me until recently.)
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Steve Lihn wrote:
> I have a question on using Order Preserving Partitioner.
>
> Many rowKeys in my system will be related to dates, so it seems natural to
>
I have a question on using Order Preserving Partitioner.
Many rowKeys in my system will be related to dates, so it seems natural to
use Order Preserving Partitioner instead of the default Random Partitioner.
However, I have been warned that special attention has to be applied for
Order Preserving
10 matches
Mail list logo
