Astyanax and/or the DS Java client depending on your use case. (Emphasis on the "and" - really no reason you can't use both - even on the same schema - depending on what you are doing as they both have their strengths and weaknesses).
To be clear, Hector is not going away. We are still accepting patches and updates, but there is no active feature development. Any other hector specific questions, please start a thread over on hector-us...@googlegroups.com On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Shahab Yunus <shahab.yu...@gmail.com>wrote: > Nate, > > (slightly OT), what client API/library is recommended now that Hector is > sunsetting? Thanks. > > Regards, > Shahab > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Nate McCall <n...@thelastpickle.com>wrote: > >> You basically want option (c). Option (d) might work, but you would be >> bending the paradigm a bit, IMO. Certainly do not use dedicated column >> families or keyspaces per tennant. That never works. The list history will >> show that with a few google searches and we've seen it fail badly with >> several clients. >> >> Overall, option (c) would be difficult to do in CQL without some very >> well thought out abstractions and/or a deep hack on the Java driver (not >> in-ellegant or impossible, just lots of moving parts to get your head >> around if you are new to such). That said, depending on the size of your >> project and skill of your team, this direction might be worth considering. >> >> Usergrid (just accepted for incubation at Apache) functions this way via >> the Thrift API: https://github.com/apigee/usergrid-stack >> >> The commercial version of Usergrid has "tens of thousands" of active >> tennants on a single cluster (same code base at the service layer as the >> open source version). It uses Hector's built in virtual keyspaces: >> https://github.com/hector-client/hector/wiki/Virtual-Keyspaces (NOTE: >> though Hector is sunsetting/in patch maintenance, the approach is certainly >> legitimate - but I'd recommend you *not* start a new project on Hector). >> >> In short, Usergrid is the only project I know of that has a well-proven >> tenant model that functions at scale, though I'm sure there are others >> around, just not open sourced or actually running large deployments. >> >> Astyanax can do this as well albeit with a little more work required: >> >> https://github.com/Netflix/astyanax/wiki/Composite-columns#how-to-use-the-prefixedserializer-but-you-really-should-use-composite-columns >> >> >> Happy to clarify any of the above. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Ben Hood <0x6e6...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've just received a requirement to make a Cassandra app >>> multi-tenanted, where we'll have up to 100 tenants. >>> >>> Most of the tables are timestamped wide row tables with a natural >>> application key for the partitioning key and a timestamp key as a >>> cluster key. >>> >>> So I was considering the options: >>> >>> (a) Add a tenant column to each table and stick a secondary index on >>> that column; >>> (b) Add a tenant column to each table and maintain index tables that >>> use the tenant id as a partitioning key; >>> (c) Decompose the partitioning key of each table and add the tenant >>> and the leading component of the key; >>> (d) Add the tenant as a separate clustering key; >>> (e) Replicate the schema in separate tenant specific key spaces; >>> (f) Something I may have missed; >>> >>> Option (a) seems the easiest, but I'm wary of just adding secondary >>> indexes without thinking about it. >>> >>> Option (b) seems to have the least impact of the layout of the >>> storage, but a cost of maintaining each index table, both code wise >>> and in terms of performance. >>> >>> Option (c) seems quite straight forward, but I feel it might have a >>> significant effect on the distribution of the rows, if the cardinality >>> of the tenants is low. >>> >>> Option (d) seems simple enough, but it would mean that you couldn't >>> query for a range of tenants without supplying a range of natural >>> application keys, through which you would need to iterate (under the >>> assumption that you don't use an ordered partitioner). >>> >>> Option (e) appears relatively straight forward, but it does mean that >>> the application CQL client needs to maintain separate cluster >>> connections for each tenant. Also I'm not sure to what extent key >>> spaces were designed to partition identically structured data. >>> >>> Does anybody have any experience with running a multi-tenanted >>> Cassandra app, or does this just depend too much on the specifics of >>> the application? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Ben >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ----------------- >> Nate McCall >> Austin, TX >> @zznate >> >> Co-Founder & Sr. Technical Consultant >> Apache Cassandra Consulting >> http://www.thelastpickle.com >> > > -- ----------------- Nate McCall Austin, TX @zznate Co-Founder & Sr. Technical Consultant Apache Cassandra Consulting http://www.thelastpickle.com
