[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIO-96?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16190390#comment-16190390 ]
Sara Asher commented on PIO-96: ------------------------------- This is issue is likely to go away with the new microservices. > Storage corrupted by sharing databases between engines with different storage > configs > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: PIO-96 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIO-96 > Project: PredictionIO > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Core > Affects Versions: 0.11.0-incubating > Reporter: Mars Hall > > When getting started with PredictionIO, it's no problem to spin up an engine > and see it work. Problems emerge when a developer tries running multiple > engines with different storage configs on the same underlying database, such > as: > * a Classifier with *Postgres* meta, event, & model storage, and > * the Universal Recommender with *Elasticsearch* meta plus *Postgres* event & > model storage. > The database will become corrupt because the meta tables are stored in > different databases, but the dynamically created event & model tables may > mistakenly share the same name, like {{pio_event_1}}. > We are directing folks to avoid this problem with the Heroku buildpack by > [isolating each engine's > database|https://github.com/heroku/predictionio-buildpack/blob/master/CUSTOM.md#provision-the-database] > and [optionally running an eventserver per > engine|https://github.com/heroku/predictionio-buildpack/blob/master/CUSTOM.md#user-content-eventserver]. > It's still a problem with local development, though. > It would be great if PredictionIO's management of the database schema's would > inherently avoid such conflicts, like by using random/UUIDs for dynamically > created table names, so that they will never conflict. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)