[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13212424#comment-13212424
]
Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-4365:
--------------------------------------
Was thinking that before each region server reaches 9 (or even just 5) regions
for a table we'd have a lot of regions.
Say I have 10gb regionsize and 128mb flushsize and 100 regionservers.
If I understand correctly a regionserver would still split at a size < 10gb
until there about 900 regions for the table (assuming somewhat even
distribution).
Maybe this is good?
I guess ideally we'd get to about 100 regions and then just grow them unless
they reach 10gb... Maybe even less regions if there're many tables.
(As I said above I might not have grokked this correctly)
> Add a decent heuristic for region size
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-4365
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4365
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.94.0, 0.92.1
> Reporter: Todd Lipcon
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: usability
> Attachments: 4365.txt
>
>
> A few of us were brainstorming this morning about what the default region
> size should be. There were a few general points made:
> - in some ways it's better to be too-large than too-small, since you can
> always split a table further, but you can't merge regions currently
> - with HFile v2 and multithreaded compactions there are fewer reasons to
> avoid very-large regions (10GB+)
> - for small tables you may want a small region size just so you can
> distribute load better across a cluster
> - for big tables, multi-GB is probably best
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
